In 2011, Aaron Tobey was arrested for displaying the text of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution on his chest during a “secondary inspection” by the TSA at the Richmond, VA, airport. His false arrest complaint against the TSA, DHS, and airport officials, police, and checkpoint staff has been approved by the 4th Circuit, which, in the process, affirmed that the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech pertains even inside TSA checkpoints.
In the majority opinion, Judge Roger Gregory wrote:
Here, Mr. Tobey engaged in a silent, peaceful protest using the text of our Constitution—he was well within the ambit of First Amendment protections. And while it is tempting to hold that First Amendment rights should acquiesce to national security in this instance, our Forefather Benjamin Franklin warned against such a temptation by opining that those “who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We take heed of his warning and are therefore unwilling to relinquish our First Amendment protections—even in an airport.
“Even in an airport”? How dangerous do people think airports are? Do they think violence might break out at any moment, like inside of a Hollywood maximum security prison? Do people think airports are so dangerous that we must waive our Constitutional rights just by stepping inside? “Sorry, son, no rights in here, this is DF-fucking-W.” Would a place that dangerous really have so many Cinnabons? The TSA needs to calm down.
This Young Conservative college student faced arrested for carrying a gun - legally. In the video below he schools this policeman by citing constitutional law.
Lawmaker looks to rein in program after free cell phones sent to dead people
Barnini Chakraborty | FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON – Dead people don’t need cell phones.
That’s the message Rep. Tim Griffin of Arkansas wants to send Congress, after he says a controversial government-backed program that helps provide phones to low-income Americans ended up sending mobiles to the dead relatives of his constituents. Griffin has introduced a bill that targets the phone hand-out program, which has ballooned into a fiscal headache for the government.
“This program demands reform,” Griffin told FoxNews.com on Monday. “There is a lot of waste in it and we need to be asking ourselves, ‘Where do we draw the line? Do we give everybody an iPad next? A computer? Is that the role the federal government should be playing?’”
Griffin said the story of dead relatives receiving cell phones was relayed to him by constituents. He added: “I’ve also gotten calls from people who say their employees were bragging about having 10 phones.”
The program in question provides limited phone service to people on government assistance. Ideally, Griffin says he would like to get rid of the program created in the mid-80s altogether, but he knows he lacks the support to kill it -- and instead is asking Congress to scale it back. Griffin’s plan would get rid of the cell phones and provide only landline service and phones.
Started in 1985, the Lifeline program was created to make sure people with low income levels weren’t cut off from emergency services, job searches or communication with family members. The program is funded by charges that appear on the monthly bills of every wireless and landline phone customer in the country. The money goes into a Universal Service Fund that pulls its revenues from fees that show up on most telephone bills as the “federal universal service charge.” The fees range but can go up to $3.22 a month.
The cost of the program has tripled to $2.2 billion in 2012 from $819 million in 2008. The risk of abuse has also risen.
“This program is completely ridiculous and it speaks to the point that we are careless with taxpayer dollars,” Griffin said.
Though the program has spanned multiple administrations, some conservatives have recently nicknamed it the "Obamaphone" after a viral video in 2012 showed an Obama supporter touting the mobiles.
Some, though, say it isn't feasible to limit the service. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 34 percent of American homes use only wireless telephones. The CDC also reports that nearly one of every six American homes received all or almost all of their calls on a wireless telephone despite also having a landline.
Under the program, there have been reports of multiple phones going to one person, cell phones being sent to underage residents and perhaps most shocking – phones being sent to the deceased.
The free phone program is open to those who meet federal poverty guidelines, or are on food stamps, Medicaid or other federal assistance programs. Under the rules, only one Lifeline subscriber is allowed per household. However, a recent audit of the program by the Federal Communications Commission revealed that 41 percent of the nearly 6 million subscribers did not meet the requirements.
The FCC defended the program to FoxNews.com and says it has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans afford basic phone options. But even they admit the program has holes. Last year the agency tightened the rules for the program and required carriers to verify existing members were eligible. The agency estimated that 15 percent of its users would be weeded out under the new process. The FCC also said its new rules have eliminated more than 1.1 million duplicate subscriptions and saved $214 million in 2012.
On Feb. 13, the FCC Enforcement Bureau issued citations to 11 people with multiple Lifeline accounts. It was the first time the FCC has taken action against individual subscribers for violating the “one per household” rule.
And on Feb. 26, the commission announced that two wireless Lifeline providers agreed to payments totaling more than $1 million to end an investigation into whether the companies violated program rules in Oklahoma.
But for some like Griffin, it doesn’t matter. He sees the program as a handout and one that should not be footed by taxpayers.
“I understand the FCC is trying to rein the abuse and my first question is, ‘What took you so long?'" he said. “I hear people saying we need this and we need that as a society but is it really fair for the government – i.e. the taxpayers – to provide people with cell phones? I don’t think so.”
Download This Gun: 3D-printed semi-automatic fires over 600 rounds
Looks like Obama isn’t only motivating massive gun sales. He’s motivating swift changes to firearms manufacturing technology. Over 10,000 people have downloaded the cad file.
Do gun laws even matter if we can simply download a gun from the internet!?
CRISIS CURRENCY: New Gold Bars Easily Break into 1 Gram Gold Pieces
No, it’s not chocolate…
It’s a solid gold bar you can break up (and it could be the future of money if there’s an economic meltdown.
Swiss refinery marketing gold bar that can be easily broken into 1g chunks to be used as payment in a crisis
Wealthy individuals in Switzerland, Austria and Germany said to be lining up to buy the gold ‘CombiBars’
Value of gold has gone up more than 500 percent since 2001
Fancy a chunk?
Damien Gayle (SERFS-UP.NET) – With Christmas, sales of chocolate gold coins no doubt soared as parents filled their little ones’ stockings with edible treasure.
But wealthy individuals worried about what the New Year could bring are instead stocking up on gold chocolate bars.
Swiss refinery Valcambi has been selling its CombiBar in Switzerland, Austria and Germany to private investors who are worried about a return of Weimar Republic-style hyperinflation.
The size of a credit card, the 50g gold CombiBars are easily be broken into one gram pieces that can be used as money in times of crisis.
Now the company wants to bring the gold bars to market in America and build up sales in India – the world’s largest consumer of gold, where it has long served as a parallel currency.
Investors worried that inflation and financial market turmoil will wipe out the value of their cash have poured money into gold over the past decade.
Gold prices have gained almost 500 percent since 2001 – compared to a 12 percent increase in MSCI’s world equity index, a benchmark for the value of the world’s business investments.
Sales of gold bars and coins were worth almost $77billion (£48billion) in 2011, up from just $3.5billion (£2.2billion) in 2002, according to data from the World Gold Council.
“The rich are buying standard bars or have deposits of physical gold. People that have less money are buying up to 100 grams,” said Michael Mesaric, CEO of Valcambi.
“But for many people a pure investment product is no longer enough. They want to be able to do something with the precious metal.”
Mesaric said the advantage of the CombiBar – dubbed a ‘chocolate bar’ because pieces can be easily broken off by hand – is that it is easily carried and is cheaper than buying 50 one gram bars.
“The produce can also be used as an alternative method of payment,” he said.
Valcambi, a unit of U.S. mining giant Newmont, is building a sales network in India and plans to launch the CombiBar on the U.S. market next year. In Japan, it wants to focus on CombiBars made of platinum and palladium.
In Europe, demand is particularly strong among the Germans, still scarred by post-World War One hyperinflation, when money became all but worthless and it took a wheelbarrow full of notes to buy a loaf of bread.
“Above all, it’s people aged between 40 and 70 that are investing in gold bars and coins,” said Mesaric. “They’ve heard talk from their parents about wars and crises devaluing money.”
The CombiBar is particularly popular among grandparents who want to give their grandchildren a strip of gold rather than a coin, said Andreas Habluetzel, head of the Swiss business of Degussa, a gold trading company.
“Demand is rising every week,” Habluetzel said. “Particularly in Germany, people buying gold fear that the euro will break apart or that banks will run into problems.”
Some fund managers, however, remain skeptical.
Stephan Mueller, who manages bank Julius Baer’s $6billion gold fund, said one problem with using gold as a method of payment is that people have to take its value on blind trust.
“Gold is a useful store of value,” Mueller said. “However I doubt whether it will succeed as a method of payment.”
Nonetheless, as developments in the euro zone lurch from one crisis to another, demand for gold that can be sold in vending machines is also growing.
“Sales rise according to the temperature of the crisis,” said Thomas Geissler, whose firm Ex Oriente Lux operates 17 gold vending machines in Europe, the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates.
The machines saw record sales in 2010, one day after the then Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackermann raised doubts over whether Greece would be able to pay its debts.
Since the launch of the machines, which operate under the name ‘GOLD To Go’, 50,000 customers have withdrawn more than 21million euros in gold. The average buyer is male, over 50 years old and well-off.
“Customers are hoarding gold mostly at home as a precaution against a crisis, just as their fathers and grandfathers did before them,” Mr Geissler said.
Talk Show Host Discovers Texas-size Poisonous Monster in his Bathroom
(AUSTIN TEXAS) - Alex Jones was just about to take a shower at his home in Austin Texas, when he came face to face with a deadly Texas Giant Redheaded centipede In his bathroom. Too bad the Toilet Safety Agency (TSA) was not there to protect Alex and his family.
MORE ABOUT THIS MONSTER FROM DALZOOD.COM:
Common Name: Texas Giant Centipede, Giant Redheaded Centipede
These fast moving and aggressive titans are among the largest of the many-legged centipedes and millipedes ... in the Order Scolopendromorpha, which is distinguished by having 21 or 23 pairs of legs and, usually, four small, individual ocelli on each side of the head.
Life Cycle: Giant redheaded centipedes are not frequently observed or collected, but those that make themselves known attract a great deal of attention because of their size and fierce appearance. Specimens average about 6 inches in length, and they may reach nearly 8ft in some instances. The centipedes are known to inhabit Arkansas, southern Missouri, Louisiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and northern Mexico.
Habitat, Food Source(s), Damage: All centipedes are believed to be predators. Their diet is composed primarily of small arthropods, although some have been found feeding on toads, small snakes, and other vertebrates. Moths are a preferred diet for captive giant redheaded centipedes. The prey is captured and killed or stunned with the poison claws. Poison glands are located in the basal segments of the claws or fangs, sometimes called maxillipeds. Each gland drains its toxic contents through a small opening near the tip of the fang.
In the mid 1920s, Dr. Baerg tested the effect of the venom by inducing a centipede to bite one of his little fingers, leaving the fangs inserted for about four seconds. The bite was followed by a sharp and strictly local pain, which began to subside noticeably after about 15 minutes. In about two hours the pain was only very slight, but there was a general swelling in the finger. Three hours after the bite, most symptoms had disappeared.
Americans Admit They Live In Fear Of The Federal Government
Majority Says the Federal Government Threatens Their Personal Rights
As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in the federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high. And for the first time, a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that 53% think that the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms while 43% disagree.
In March 2010, opinions were divided over whether the government represented a threat to personal freedom; 47% said it did while 50% disagreed. In surveys between 1995 and 2003, majorities rejected the idea that the government threatened people’s rights and freedoms.
The growing view that the federal government threatens personal rights and freedoms has been led by conservative Republicans. Currently 76% of conservative Republicans say that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms and 54% describe the government as a “major” threat. Three years ago, 62% of conservative Republicans said the government was a threat to their freedom; 47% said it was a major threat.
By comparison, there has been little change in opinions among Democrats; 38% say the government poses a threat to personal rights and freedoms and just 16% view it as a major threat.
People who say they have guns in their households continue to be more likely than those who do not to say that the government is a threat to their personal rights and freedoms. About six-in-ten (62%) in gun-owning households see the government as a threat, compared with 45% of those without guns; this gap is no larger today than it was three years ago.
The survey finds continued widespread distrust in government. About a quarter of Americans (26%) trust the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time; 73% say they can trust the government only some of the time or volunteer that they can never trust the government. Explore a Pew Research interactive on Public Trust in Government: 1958-2013.
Just 20% of Americans say they are basically content with the federal government; 58% say they are frustrated while 19% say they are angry. For the most part, these views have changed little during Obama’s presidency. However, the percentage saying they are content with government sank to a low of just 11% in August 2011, following protracted negotiations between the president and congressional leaders over raising the debt ceiling. The same survey found that the percentage expressing anger at government had reached 26%, and just 19% said they trusted the government at least most of the time.
Views: Problem is with Congressmen, Not the System
Opinions about Congress, while little changed over the past year, also remain very negative. Just 23% offer a favorable opinion of Congress, while 68% express an unfavorable view. Favorable views of Congress hit 50% in spring 2009 but subsequently have plummeted.
For two decades between 1985 and 2005 Congress was generally viewed more favorably than unfavorably. The low point during that period came in the fall of 1995 – just prior to the government shutdown of that year – when 42% offered a favorable opinion of Congress.
When asked if the current problem with Congress is a broken political system, or the members themselves, most people continue to point to the lawmakers. A majority (56%) says that the political system can work fine, it is the members of Congress that are the problem. Only about a third (32%) says that lawmakers have good intentions and it is political system that is broken.
At a time when there are wide partisan differences in opinions about government, there is broad agreement that members of Congress are the problem. Virtually identical majorities of Republicans (58%), Democrats (57%) and independents (56%) say that lawmakers, rather than the political system, are the problem with Congress.
Government Viewed as ‘Threat’
Overall, 53% of Americans think that the federal government threatens their own rights and freedoms; 31% say it is major threat, while 22% say it a minor threat. Roughly three-quarters (76%) of conservative Republicans say that the government threatens their personal rights, and most (54%) say the government poses a major threat, by far the highest percentage of any ideological group.
Among moderate and liberal Republicans, 57% view the federal government as a threat to personal rights and freedoms and just 32% say it is a major threat. These opinions, like those among Democrats and independents, are little changed from March 2010.
Trust in Government Remains Low
For the past seven years, a period covering the final two years of the Bush administration and Obama’s entire presidency, no more than about three-in-ten Americans have said that they trust the government in Washington to do the right thing always or most of the time.
The current survey finds only about quarter (26%) saying they can trust the government always or most of the time, while nearly three-quarters (73%) say that they can trust government only some of the time, or volunteer than they can never trust the government.
Majorities across all partisan and demographic groups express little or no trust in government. However, there continue to be sizable racial, age and partisan differences in these opinions.
More than twice as many Hispanics as whites trust the federal government (44% vs. 20%); among blacks, 38% say they can trust the government always or most of the time.
People younger than 30 have more trust in government than do those older than 30. And far more Democrats (38%) than independents (21%) or Republicans (15%) say they can trust the government at least most of the time.
The Pew Research Center’s 2010 study of attitudes toward government found that, since the 1950s, the party in control of the White House has expressed more trust in government than the so-called “out party.” But partisan differences in trust in government have been much wider during the Bush and Obama administrations than during previous administrations. For more, see “Distrust, Discontent and Partisan Anger: The People and Their Government,” April 18, 2010.
Frustration with Government Is Nothing New
Public frustration with the federal government is not new. Since 1997, only once has a majority said they were “basically content” with the government – in November 2001, two months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Over this 15-year period, majorities have consistently said they are frustrated with government, with smaller percentages expressing anger. The percentage saying they are angry at the government reached a high of 26% in August 2011, following the deal to lift the debt ceiling. Currently, 19% feel angry at government, 58% are frustrated, while 20% are basically content.
Conservative Republicans are more likely to say they are angry at the government: 31% say they are angry, compared with 17% of moderate and liberal Republicans and much smaller percentages of Democrats.
In October 2006, during George W. Bush’s second term, those at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum – liberal Democrats – were most angry at government. At that time, 44% of liberal Democrats said they were angry at the federal government, far higher than the share of conservative Republicans expressing anger today.
ABOUT THE SURVEY: http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/31/majority-says-the-federal-government-threatens-their-personal-rights/2/
READ THE FULL REPORT: http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/01-31-13_Views_of_Government.pdf
“Presidents’ Day,” as it is now commonly called, retains some vague connection to Washington’s birthday, if only for the purpose of advertising “Washington’s Birthday sales.” The traditional birth date of February 22 has been stretched to create a Monday holiday — this year on February 18 — to accommodate America’s patriotic devotion to three-day weekends.
But Lincoln’s birthday, February 12, appears to have lost some of its former aura, since all presidents are now supposedly covered by the amorphous, all-purpose “Presidents’ Day.” (Let us now praise Millard Fillmore.) That is ironic, because despite the energetic work of some recent revisionist historians, Lincoln remains the most revered — some say “deified” — of all our presidents. Historians have repeatedly ranked him the greatest U.S. president, with FDR coming in second.
Both were wartime presidents, dealing with crises that threatened the very survival of the nation. The nation survived, and the presidents have received the glory, since those who died in the battlefields — who gave, as Lincoln put it, “the last full measure of devotion” — are too numerous to remember. The presidents were the managers of the winning teams, but as Yankees manager Casey Stengel said after his seventh World Series win in 10 years, “I couldn’t ‘a’ done it without the players.”
Politicians are not saints, at least not in our time.
Yet Ambrose Bierce’s definition of a saint in his Devil’s Dictionary applies to politicians as well: “A dead sinner, revised and edited.” That seems especially true when the sinner has died while serving in the nation’s highest office. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt died while in office, though death came to Lincoln in far more sudden and dramatic fashion. Roosevelt had sought and won the office so many times that awaiting his death seemed the only “exit strategy” available to Republicans in exile. Though others died in office, the term “President for Life” could be fittingly used to describe only one American head of state.
Dying in office does not necessarily make a president “immortal,” however. Few today wax nostalgic about Harrison, Garfield, or McKinley, and the Harding administration is remembered mainly for the Teapot Dome scandal. But Lincoln’s death, like that of John F. Kennedy, turned out to be what one commentator called Elvis Presley’s passing: “a good move, public relations-wise.” Few remember that Lincoln, like Kennedy, was elected by a minority of those voting. The late columnist Joseph Sobran noted ironically that Lincoln’s greatness, now considered virtually indisputable, went largely unnoticed by his contemporaries.
“The abolitionists considered him unprincipled,” Sobran wrote. “Southerners hated him, and most Northerners opposed his war on the South. Only when the war ended and he was shot did people begin to transform him into a hero and martyr of the Union cause.”
Thus Lincoln paid a high price for his glory. Had he lived to serve out his second term, would the history of the last third of the 19th century in America have been noticeably different, perhaps even better? Though Lincoln was hated in the Southern states that his generals bludgeoned, pillaged, and burned into “unconditional surrender,” his attitude toward the Confederacy appeared markedly different from the “radical Republicans” who impeached Andrew Johnson and treated white Southerners as a subjugated people in an occupied nation. Lincoln, recall, promised at his first inauguration to leave untouched the institution of slavery where it existed and to refrain from invading the Southern states so long as the rebels respected federal property, including military installations, and paid imposts and duties to the Union government he regarded as still the legitimate government over all the states.
Though he opposed the expansion of slavery, he was neither an abolitionist nor a promoter of racial equality. He publicly stated he did not believe in equality of the Negro with the white man and did not believe the black brethren should be permitted to vote, hold office, or serve on juries. Lincoln was a politician, and he would no doubt have bent to accommodate the radical Republicans on some points. But it is hard to imagine him going along with the Reconstruction scheme of installing suddenly freed and uneducated slaves in high political office.
The Civil War and its aftermath left what were once “these United States” with an enlarged and consolidated federal government. Increasingly, parts of Jefferson’s description of British tyranny in the Declaration of Independence would come to be quoted as an apt description of our own government in Washington. Would the colonists have rebelled against “taxation without representation” if they had known what taxation with representation would be like? The British king, the Declaration charged, had created “a multitude of new offices” in what we might now recognize as a dress rehearsal for Roosevelt’s New Deal. He had “sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” And that was long before we had an income tax and the Internal Revenue Service!
Lincoln claimed he had never had a political sentiment that was not inspired by the Declaration of Independence. Surely, what have been called that document’s “glittering generalities” about freedom and equality inspired much of Lincoln’s lofty rhetoric. But to the main argument of the Declaration, the asserted right of one people to separate themselves from another and establish their own governments, Lincoln was implacably opposed, at least as it was claimed by the Confederate States of America. Lincoln refused to recognize either the right or the fact of secession, insisting on calling the uprising in the South a “rebellion,” rather than secession. And deeming it a domestic rebellion, not a war, he saw no need to go to Congress for a declaration of war.
Lincoln authorized his generals to suspend habeas corpus and he imprisoned without trial many noncombatants, including Northern editors and publishers who opposed the war against the Southern states. Interestingly, that has done little, at least until very recent times, to diminish his reputation. Newspapers and other media have often been regarded as impediments to “good government.” Evidence of Napoleon’s greatness, wrote one sociologist, was the fact that he once had a publisher shot.
Lincoln was a brilliant rhetorician and a magnificent orator — among the greatest, if not the greatest, in our nation’s history. But he was neither the first nor the last president to stand truth and logic on their old gray heads.
DoD: Population Control Part Of US “Stability Operations”
Jurriaan Maessen (Infowars.com) - James A. Schear, deputy assistant secretary of defense for partnership strategy and stability operations, told an audience at the annual summit of the International Stability Operations Association (ISOA) a few days ago that population control is one of the “core missions” of the U.S. military in relation to stability operations. The DoD press release stated:
“Stability operations, which are usually military operations in civilian environments, include many missions, among them peace operations, combating terrorism, counter-drug operations, population control and nation assistance.”
“While we’re seeking to rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region while maintaining our emphasis on the Middle East, as we must, we’re also viewing security cooperation as a way to sustain our defense commitments within Europe and partnerships across all regions,” Schear stated.
In his speech, Schear stressed that working with the private sector both in Europe and the U.S. is crucial in ensuring that the “stability operations” such as population control are effectively implemented:
“In regions where America’s national interests are at stake, we must make the requisite investment now to help us forego the requirement for larger, more expensive and more intrusive operations later on,” Shear added. He also mentioned that international alliances are needed:
“I would even go further, and say not only the U.S. government but our allies and partners will see increasing needs for private-sector expertise and capabilities in areas such as improving governance, monitoring tenuous situations, and providing an immediate-response capability.”
Population control as a part of America’s geo-political objectives was formulated as far back as 1974 by Kissinger in his infamous report NSSM 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests. In this heartless report, population control is being considered as a formidable US security interest, especially in regards to world food supplies:
“Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relationships, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”
Another one of Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger’s statements:
“(…) overall assistance strategy should increasingly concentrate on selective policies which will contribute to population decline as well as other goals. This strategy reflects the complementarity between population control and other U.S. development objectives, particularly those relating to AID’s Congressional mandate to focus on problems of the poor majority in LDC’s.”
The possibility to use food as a weapon in the demographic chess game is also being mentioned:
“Without improved food security, there will be pressure leading to possible conflict and the desire for large families for “insurance” purposes, thus undermining other development and population control efforts.”
The latest comments by a senior defense official in the U.S. military underscores the fact that population was and is of major concern to the establishment, not only for American security interests but for those of the New World Order.
Jurriaan Maessen’s blog is Explosivereports.com.
Jurriaan Maessen | A Defense Department official admitted yesterday that population control is an integral part of America’s “stability operations.”
“Save the Polar Bears” Scientist Guilty or Not Guilty?
The scientist who galvanized the international polar bear conservation movement with reports of drowned bears is back in his old job with the Department of the Interior (DOI) after a two-year investigation into charges of data falsification. Arctic wildlife biologist Charles Monnett made waves in the environmental movement when he and fellow DOI employee Jeffrey Gleason published a 2006 paper in the journal Polar Biology. It stated that alarming numbers of polar bears are drowning due to melting sea ice caused by global warming.
Al Gore reported Monnett's research in his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth. During the film computer animation shows a polar bear struggling to climb onto a small, solitary ice floe that breaks under its weight. Gore bemoans, "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances — up to sixty miles — to find the ice." (Incidentally, the U.S. Geological Survey reports these hardy creatures are capable of swimming extremely long distances, some in excess of 200 miles. It says the data suggest "they do not stop to rest during their journey.")
In 2010, an anonymous co-worker charged Monnett with several counts of wrongdoing, including intentional omission or use of false data in his polar bear research. The complainant said Monnett intended to fraudulently influence the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) decision to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. He also accused Monnett of illegally releasing confidential government e-mails to anti-oil activists.
These allegations launched a two-year DOI investigation, during which time Monnett's employing agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), suspended him with pay for six weeks and then reassigned him to an analyst position. Last month, DOI published its findings.
We found that Monnett made unauthorized disclosures of Government emails to a non-Government entity. Regarding the falsification of data allegations, we found that Monnett and Gleason used an incomplete database as their primary source of information to write their manuscript, made conflicting statements to investigators regarding the writing and editing of their manuscript, and engaged in questionable extrapolation of data by "deliberately" (using Monnett's word) understating data in the manuscript.
DOI also found the research was used as a reference in FWS's 2008 decision to add polar bears to the list of endangered species. The department reported its evidence to Alaska's U.S. District Attorney as well as to BOEM. The DA declined criminal prosecution, and BOEM's deputy director reprimanded Monnett for "improper release of Government documents." As for scientific integrity, the deputy director had only this to say: "While there were other findings made by the [Office of Inspector General] in its report regarding your conduct, I have decided not to take action regarding those findings." BOEM then reinstated Monnett in his former position. The bureau did not address Gleason's role in the case because he now works for another government agency.
Such a mild wrist-slap in the face of DOI's severe criticism has major media outlets announcing Monnett's exoneration. "Inquiry Finds No Proof That Federal Biologist Falsified Data," reads a New York Times blog. The journal Nature headlined Monnett as "Cleared of Misconduct."
Yet official investigation transcripts show Monnett declared his own research "sloppy." Indeed, he admits how he and Gleason, on a 2004 survey of bowhead whales, observed four drowned polar bears after a harsh Arctic storm, leading to their speculation that the deaths resulted from global warming.
Ironically, recent reports reveal polar bear populations are defying doomsday predictions. In the Hudson Bay area, where numbers were predicted to decline to about 650 by 2011, the population is holding steady at around 1,000 bears. In Davis Strait, estimates have swelled from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 in 2007. World Wildlife Fund spokesman Tom Arnbom admits to two growing populations of polar bears, including one in Norway's Arctic islands. And last year, notwithstanding the polar bear's endangered status, Russia lifted a ban on hunting the species for the first time since 1957 — a ban that came about not because of global warming but due to overhunting.
Canada is the only country in the world that allows commercial trade of polar bear products. The Los Angeles Times reports the bears' endangered status is setting records in pelt prices, to the delight of native hunters. But they are wary of the effect on their economy and culture of ever-encroaching international restrictions. "The Inuit have always hunted the polar bear. It's in our best interest to ensure the population is healthy," Terry Audla, a representative of the indigenous tribes, told the Times. "But people have to have faith in us and work with us — to base things on facts, and not listen to these animal rights activists who are bending the truth."
Rebecca Terrell | The New American - http://bit.ly/OLNbpB
Vitamin D insufficiency promotes chronic disease and increases risk of early death by 50 percent
http://bit.ly/eA8V8J John Phillip | Medical researchers have been sounding the alarm about the importance of maintaining optimal vitamin D levels. http://bit.ly/UaMwQZ
Scientists ‘confident’ they have effective vegetable-based treatment for breast cancer
(NaturalNews) Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is one of the most aggressive and deadly forms of breast cancer. It is harder to detect, grows the fastest, spreads earlier to other parts of the body and recurs more often. What's more, the arsenal of drugs and chemicals currently used by mainstream medicine to treat TNBC are so toxic that patients often can't tolerate the treatment -- and chemotherapy is often ineffective anyway.
