Barack Banana Bolshevism Doctrine–Marxists Forever–Republicans–Not Legal–Obey Obama Or The Stink Eye!

Posted on June 30, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Foreign Policy, Law, Life, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Security, Talk Radio, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |


The most important political development of the second millennium was the firm establishment, first in one or two countries, then in many, of the rule of law. Its acceptance and enforcement in any society is far more vital to the happiness of the majority than is even democracy itself. For democracy, without the rule of law to uphold the wishes of the electorate, is worthless, as the history of the past half-century has shown again and again in Africa, Latin America and Asia. The Soviet Union had, in theory, a wonderfully democratic constitution, But it lacked the rule of law entirely, and as a result Stalin was able to murder 30 million of its citizens and die safely in his bed, unarraigned and unpunished.

“What do we mean by the rule of law? We mean a judicial regime in which everyone is equal before the law, and everyone–and every institution–is subject to it.”

~Paul Johnson, Laying Down the Law, The Wall St. Journal, March 10, 1999,

Banana Boat Song–Now Obama’s Signature Song

Honduras president seeks constitutional change


Obama on Honduras

Honduras – The Truth not being told in CNN!!!

Honduras ex-President Manuel Zelaya Allegedly Tied to Drug Trafficking

Krauthammer et al. on the Honduras coup

Barack Obama Blasted on Honduras Developments: “Shame on You”

 The Honduran constitution has a provision that presidents of their country can serve for only one four year term.

“…Section V, Chapter 6 of the Constitution of Honduras of 1982 establishes the President as the executive branch of government and sets forth the powers and qualifications for the office. Qualifications are extremely stringent, designed to prevent a dictatorship by political, military, or business figures. To be eligible to run for president, the candidate is required to:

  • Be a natural-born Honduran.
  • Be older than 30 years old at the time of election.
  • Be able to enjoy the full rights of Honduran citizenship.
  • Not be an official of any church or religious denomination.

Not be in active military service during the six months prior to the election.

  • Not be a Presidential appointee, secretary or under-secretary of state, judge, member of the electoral court, attorney general or deputy attorney, Comptroller General or Deputy Comptroller General, or an executive of a privately held institution for at least six months prior to the election.
  • Not be an officer of the armed forces or law enforcement, or an active soldier therein for at least 12 months prior to the election.
  • The spouse or relative of the President or any military leader.
  • Not have been president already.

The President of Honduras serves one four-year term and is not eligible for re-election. …”

The Honduran people do not want a repeat of either their own past history nor for that matter the successful attempts by Latin American and South American leaders to be elected for life. 

When President Manuel Zelaya attempted to hold a referendum or election to see if the people wanted to change the Constitution, the Supreme Court of Honduras acted by removing him from office and expelled him to Costa Rica.

When a clear choice between another lifetime potential dictator and the rule of law presents itself, who does President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton side with–the dictator of course and not the rule of law.

Our Green President also sided with noted Red  Communists and Socialist dictators including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, and Cuban Fidel Castro.

The Obama Banana Boshevism Doctrine–Marxist–Forever–Republican–Not Legal!


Michael Savage – Obama, Hillary Support Honduras Dictator – Side with Chavez and Castro



CNN Interviews Honduras President Zelaya After Military Coup


The stink eye

 Obama Poster



Harry Belafonte & Nat King Cole


Background Articles and Videos


2009 Honduran political crisis

“… The ongoing 2009 Honduran political crisis resulted from a non-binding referendum on changing the constitution proposed by President Manuel Zelaya but ruled illegal by the country’s Supreme Court, attorney general, top electoral body, and human-rights ombudsman.[1] Zelaya nonetheless asked the Army to distribute ballots in accordance with its role in conducting elections. After Army chief Romeo Vásquez Velásquez refused to distribute ballots, Zelaya dismissed him from office. The dismissal was declared illegal by courts and the parliament. On June 28, 2009, shortly before polls were due to open for the referendum, the armed forces deposed Zelaya.[2] Most news media and government sources outside Honduras refer to this change in power as a coup d’etat.[3] Some members of the Honduran government maintain that ousting President Zelaya was entirely legal. The broadcast of at least some news media is currently suppressed in Honduras, with members of the Honduran military reportedly shutting down at least one radio station and halting TV transmission of teleSUR and CNN en Español.[3]

The armed forces of Honduras seized President Manuel Zelaya at his home,[4] holding him at an airbase outside Tegucigalpa[2] before flying him to Costa Rica.[5] During the action, communications and electricity in the city were interrupted for about six hours. Government officials and other politicians suspected of loyalty to Zelaya have been detained. Later in the day the Honduran Supreme Court said that it had ordered the removal of the president.[2]

Roberto Micheletti, the speaker of parliament and next in the Presidential line of succession was sworn in as President by the National Congress.[6]

The Honduran government says that Zelaya was arrested in compliance with the constitution and that the succession has been a completely legal process as set out in Honduran laws,[7] but no foreign governments have endorsed this view and many of them have described the events as a coup d’état.[8] The General Assembly of the Organization of American States is scheduled to meet in a special session on Tuesday 30 June to discuss the situation.[9] …”


Manuel Zelaya

“…José ManuelMelZelaya Rosales (born September 20, 1952) is a Honduran politician who was elected President of Honduras in 2006. Zelaya’s attempt to hold a constitutional referendum caused a political crisis and his ousting.[2] He was deposed by the Army on June 28, 2009, but is seen as the legitimate president by the international community.[3][4][5]

He defeated National Party candidate Porfirio Pepe Lobo in a national election on November 27, 2005 and was inaugurated on January 27, 2006, replacing Ricardo Maduro and becoming the fifth President from the Liberal Party.

“…General opinions about his presidency were very divided by political, ideological, party and class lines. The traditional left praised him for his economic policies and social reforms which on occasion have put him at odds with the economic powers which traditionally have ruled in Honduras. The more conservative part of the population expressed their opposition to both his foreign policy, particularly his alliance with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and his adhering Honduras to the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas as well as for his periodic attacks on the United States, and periodic confrontations with the business sector.

The Economist gave Zelaya mixed reviews for his first year in office, saying that “Despite success in fulfilling some of his campaign promises […] Zelaya’s lack of a coherent programme has limited the government’s ability to address Honduras’s long-standing problems,” and that “introducing far-reaching reforms will be difficult” in the face of vigorous opposition and “simmering social tensions.”[6] In 2008, Zelaya’s popular approval dropped amid the 2007–2008 world food price crisis and worsening drug-related violence that gave Honduras one of the highest homicide rates in Latin America. [7] …”

“…In 2009 Zelaya caused uproar with his call to have a referendum in June to decide about convening a Constitutional National Assembly to approve a new political constitution.[11] The constitution explicitly bars changes to some of its clauses.

The question to be asked was: “¿Está usted de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de noviembre de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna para decidir sobre la convocatoria a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente que apruebe una nueva Constitución política?” This is roughly translated as “Do you agree to the installation of a fourth ballot [box] during the November 2009 general election to decide whether to convene a National Constitutional Assembly to approve a new political constitution?”[12]

The referendum was ruled unlawful by Honduras’s highest court.[13] Zelaya rejected the ruling and sacked Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, the head of Honduras’s armed forces. Velásquez had refused to help with the referendum because he did not want to violate law. The sacking was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court as well as by the Congress.[13][14]

In addition to the Supreme Court, Zelaya’s referendum was declared illegal by the Congress, the country’s attorney general, and the country’s top electoral body.[15][16] The Congress began discussing how to impeach Zelaya.[17] On June 27, 2009, thousands of protesters opposed to Zelaya’s rule marched through the capital city.[17]

The Supreme Court, the Congress, and the military have recommended that voters stay home because the referendum would be neither fair nor safe to voters. The National Human Rights Commissioner, Ramon Custodio, said “I would tell the people to stay calmly at home in order not to get involved in any incident or any violence by going to vote ‘no,’ because they might be assaulted by these mobs,” referring to Zelaya’s supporters. However, unions and farm groups supported the referendum as a necessary precursor to economic reforms favoring Honduras’s poor majority.[7] …”

Banana Democrats

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 29, 2009

“…That’s the sorry story as Honduras’ now ex-president, Mel Zelaya, last Thursday defied a Supreme Court ruling and tried to hold a “survey” to rewrite the constitution for his permanent re-election. It’s the same blueprint for a rigged political system that’s made former democracies like Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador into shells of free countries.

Zelaya’s operatives did their dirt all the way through. First they got signatures to launch the “citizen’s power” survey through threats — warning those who didn’t sign that they’d be denied medical care and worse. Zelaya then had the ballots flown to Tegucigalpa on Venezuelan planes. After his move was declared illegal by the Supreme Court, he tried to do it anyway.

As a result of his brazen disregard for the law, Zelaya found himself escorted from office by the military Sunday morning, and into exile. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Fidel Castro rushed to blame the U.S., calling it a “yanqui coup.”

President Obama on Monday called the action “not legal,” and claimed that Zelaya is still the legitimate president.

There was a coup all right, but it wasn’t committed by the U.S. or the Honduran court. It was committed by Zelaya himself. He brazenly defied the law, and Hondurans overwhelmingly supported his removal (a pro-Zelaya rally Monday drew a mere 200 acolytes).

Yet the U.S. administration stood with Chavez and Castro, calling Zelaya’s lawful removal “a coup.” Obama called the action a “terrible precedent,” and said Zelaya remains president. …”


Meddling, Are We?

Peter Wehner

“…In the first instance, Obama was clearly trying to pacify the theocratic leadership of the repressive, terror-sponsoring Iranian regime. In the case of Honduras, Obama is “meddling” in order to protect the legitimacy of an authoritarian president who is acting as if he were above the law, is violating Honduras’s Constitution, and is supported by Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Fidel Castro (see this Wall Street Journal column for more).

As a general matter, I’m not in favor of military coups. On the other hand, I’m not in favor of Zelaya doing to Honduras what Chavez has done in Venezuela. In any event, there doesn’t seem to be any consistency on when Obama decides to meddle, beyond his tendency to take actions that make life easier for those who do not wish America well.

This is all getting rather confusing, isn’t it?



“…Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of the state in a republic or union. It is a political system controlled by nonelected rulers who usually permit some degree of individual freedom. [1]

Theodore M. Vestal of Oklahoma State University–Stillwater has written that authoritarianism is characterized by:

  • “Highly concentrated and centralized power structures,” in which political power is generated and maintained by a “repressive system that excludes potential challengers” and uses political parties and mass organizations to “mobilize people around the goals of the government”;[2]
  • The following principles:
1) rule of men, not rule of law;
2) rigged elections;
3) all important political decisions made by unelected officials behind closed doors;
4) a bureaucracy operated quite independently of rules, the supervision of elected officials, or concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve;
5) the informal and unregulated exercise of political power;[2]
  • Leadership that is “self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens’ free choice among competitors”
  • No guarantee of civil liberties or tolerance for meaningful opposition;[2]
  • Weakening of civil society: “No freedom to create a broad range of groups, organisms, and political parties to compete for power or question the decisions of rulers,” with instead an “attempt to impose controls on virtually all elements of society”;[2] and
  • Political stability maintained by “control over and support of the military to provide security to the system and control of society; 2) a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime; 3) control of internal opposition and dissent; 4) creation of allegiance through various means of socialization.”

Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through “inadequate performance to demands of the people.”[2] Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness, and that this overly rigid approach fails to “adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the system.”[2] Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse.[2]

Authoritarianism is marked by “indefinite political tenure” of the ruler or ruling party (often in a single-party state) or other authority.[2] The transition from an authoritarian system to a democratic one is referred to as democratization.[2]

John Duckitt of the University of the Witwatersrand suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both are in opposition to individualism.[3] Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.[4] Others argue that collectivism, properly defined, is based on consensus decision-making, the opposite of authoritarianism. …” 


Leaders from Obama to Chavez blast Honduras coup

Police and soldiers clashed with thousands of protesters outside Honduras’ national palace Monday, leaving at least 15 people injured, as world leaders from Barack Obama to Hugo Chavez demanded the return of a president ousted in a military coup.

Leftist leaders pulled their ambassadors from Honduras and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala would cut trade with neighboring Honduras for at least 48 hours. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called for Hondurans to rise up against those who toppled his ally, Manuel Zelaya.

“We’re ready to support the rebellion of the Honduran people,” Chavez said, though he did not say what kind of support he was offering.

Protests outside the presidential palace grew from hundreds to thousands, and soldiers and police advanced behind riot shields, using tear gas to scatter the protesters. The demonstrators, many of them choking on the gas, hurled rocks and bottles as they retreated. At least 38 protesters were detained, according to human rights prosecutor Sandra Ponce.

Red Cross paramedic Cristian Vallejo said he had transported 10 protesters to hospitals, most of them with injuries from rubber bullets. An Associated Press photographer in another area saw protesters carrying away another five injured people. It was not clear how they were hurt. 


Obama: Sure, I’ll meet with Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc

Dallas Tea Party, Honduras, Government Worker Raises



Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Time To Sound The Alarm: Call Your Representative and Senators–Cap and Trade Bill to be Voted in U.S. House on Friday–Kill The Cap and Trade Energy Tax Today! UPDATED

President Barack Hussein Obama Assists Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei By Cutting Off Federal Funding of Iranian Talk Radio–Silencing The Lambs!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

Liberty Launch Countdown to The Celebration of Independence Day–Saturday, July 4, 2009–Ice Tea Party Time To Freeze Government Expenditures, Deficits, Debts and Taxes–Expect 30 Million Nationally in 1,000 Cities and Towns and 1 Million in Washington D.C.!

Second American Revolution–Tea Party Celebrations–Washington Fair–July 4, 2009–An Open Invitation To The American People

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009!

Independents Lead The The Second American Revolution Surge–Independence Day–Saturday July 4, 2009 In Washington D.C.–Tea Party Time–On To Washington–Dare You To Move!

Tea Parties Take Off In Texas–Spreading Nationwide–Are You Going To Washington Fair? Millions Celebrate The Second American Revolution–Saturday, July 4, 2009

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Posted on June 21, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Economics, Immigration, Links, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Religion, Reviews, Science, Taxes, Technology, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 “Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

~President Ronald Reagan in 1982

New Barack Obama Ad

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Watch How Obama Punishes Babies

Obama Vote-Infanticide-living babies thrown into waste bins

Obama & ‘Live Birth Abortion’

Mad World of Barack Obama

“…Barack Obama opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This would provide basic medical care to infants that survive abortion. This is a mad world….”

Senator Barrack Obama has a new video ad where he speaks about his Kansas family values.

This from a man who supports selective infanticide, the killing of live babies in cold blood.

This from a man who supports late term partial birth abortions.

This from a man who considers having a baby a punishment.

I seriously doubt that these are the strong family values he learned from his grandparents and mother in Kansas.

These are not the values of the vast majority of American people who consider both infanticide and late term partial birth abortion morally repugnant, a mortal sin and a crime that should be punished.

Senator Obama real values are not the values appearing in his video ad.

If they were, he would never be elected President of The United States of America.

Senator Obama’s socialist values on infanticide and late term partial birth abortion are the values of a state socialist with little respect for the individual and human life.

Supporting infanticide and late term partial birth abortion are more the values of such noted socialist leaders as  Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler.

State socialists first take the property and lives of those least able to defend themselves–babies, children, disabled, woman, and the elderly. 

Mao, Stalin and Hitler were all very clear how they valued the individual and human life:

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous.  A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

“Every Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power rows out of the barrel of a gun.” “

~Mao Zedong

“Death solves all problems – no man, no problem.”

“A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic.”

~Jospeh Stalin

“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”

~Adolf Hitler

State socialism from the left or right leads invariably down the road to serfdom and totalitarianism:

“Totalitarianism of the Left bred totalitarianism of the Right; Communism and fascism were the hammer and the anvil on which liberalism was broken to pieces. The emergence of Stalin’s autocracy changed the dynamic of corruption not in kind but in degree. For Stalin “was but old Lenin writ large.” The change is degree nonetheless was important because of its sheer scale. The arrests, the prisons, the camps, the scope, the brutality and violence of the social engineering – nothing like it had ever been seen or even imagined before. So the counter-model became more monstrously ambitious; and the fear which energized its construction more intense. If Leninism begot the fascism of Mussolini, it was Stalinism which made possible the Nazi Leviathan.”

Paul Johnson
“Modern Times”

These leaders of state governments killed tens of millions of human beings in a reign of terror.

These socialist leaders are the bloodiest dictators of this millennium and they give real meaning to the term democide.


Democide is a term coined by political scientist R. J. Rummel for “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”. Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the legal definition of genocide, and it has found currency among other scholars.


Bloodiest dictators for the millennium.Rummel, [2][3][4].
Dictator Dates Est. Deaths
Qing Dynasty,
mainly Empress Dowager Cixi
Tai Ping Rebellion
Genghis Khan 1215–1233 4,000,000
Adolf Hitler 1933–1945 21,000,000
Chiang Kai-shek 1921–1948 10,000,000
Kublai Khan 1252–1279 19,000,000
Vladimir Lenin 1917–1924 4,000,000
Leopold II of Belgium 1885–1908 10,000,000
Pol Pot 1968–1987 2,000,000
Joseph Stalin 1929–1953 43,000,000
Hideki Tojo 1941–1945 4,000,000
Mao Zedong 1923–1976 77,000,000

Once the American people learn just how radical Senator Obama position is on both abortion, especially late term partial birth abortions, and his support for infanticide, his election run for the presidency will be over.

Not even the entire fortune of his leading campaign donor, George Soros, whose agenda Senator Obama is promoting, will be able to save his candidacy.

The American people will never knowingly elect a radical socialist–no matter how charming and likeable.

Elections matter.

Despite many serious reservations about Senator McCain, especially about illegal immigration and the need for a cap and trade tax, I will vote for him.

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not… with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
~Pope Benedict XVI

Background Articles and Videos

CNN: Barack Obama’s opposition to Born Alive Act

“…CNN fairly reported then-state Sen. Barack Obama’s opposition to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill to protect abortion survivors from being shelved to die in hospital soiled utility rooms.

Obama not only voted against Born Alive, he was the sole senator to speak against it on the senate floor – 2 years in a row.

The federal version of Born Alive passed unanimously 98-0 in the US Senate with Sens. Kennedy and Boxer speaking in support on the senate floor. It passed overwhelmingly by voice vote in the US House. President Bush signed it into law on August 5, 2002.

As chairman of the IL Senate Health & Human Services Committee, Obama singlehandedly stopped the identical wording of the federal bill from being introduced in IL in 2003.

Barack Obama is so radical in his support of abortion, he supports infanticide. …”

Forget Obama’s Abortion Radicalism: Gas is 4 Bucks!

Obama’s abortion lies

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 11, 2008

“…There’s a newly uncovered paper trail demonstrating Barack Obama’s abortion militancy you can believe in (hat tip – Jill Stanek):

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 – denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions – were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.


Obama’s Catholic Problem

by Linda Chavez

“Barack Obama has a Catholic problem. If he doesn’t do better than John Kerry did in 2004 with this quintessential swing voting bloc, he won’t be elected president. …”

“…Catholics are by no means a single-issue voting group. But for observant Catholics, those who attend Mass regularly and follow the Church’s teachings, a candidate’s position on abortion matters. Even among more broadly identified Catholics — those who call themselves Catholic, regardless of whether they are observant — 59 percent oppose abortion, according to a recent Time magazine poll. And Barack Obama’s record on this issue will cause pause for many of them.

Like most Democratic politicians, Barack Obama favors abortion rights for women, with few exceptions. He has recently said that he might support some limits on very late-term abortions, those that occur in the last trimester of pregnancy. But when it comes to actual legislative limits, he’s never found one yet he can vote for. …”

Obama Abortion Stance

“Obama’s Twisted Mind – Obama’s sick voting record”

Catholic League President Criticizes Obama On Abortion

Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act

We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003.

My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.”

Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.”

There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording.

With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005. …”

Obama’s Abortion Extremism

By Michael Gerson

“…But Obama’s record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion — a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called “too close to infanticide.” Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

For decades, most Democrats and many Republicans have hoped the political debate on abortion would simply go away. But it is the issue that does not die. Recent polls have shown that young people are more likely than their elders to support abortion restrictions. Few Americans oppose abortion under every circumstance, but a majority oppose most of the abortions that actually take place — generally supporting the procedure only in the case of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Perhaps this is a revolt against a culture of disposability. Perhaps it reflects the continuing revolution of ultrasound technology — what might be called the “Juno” effect. In the delightful movie by that name, the protagonist, a pregnant teen seeking an abortion, is confronted by a classmate who informs her that the unborn child already has fingernails — which causes second thoughts. A worthless part of its mother’s body — a clump of protoplasmic rubbish — doesn’t have fingernails. …”



Obama is no moderate: His radical position on ‘abortion’ after birth

So, what are we to make of Obama’s votes against protecting the right to life for living babies who have survived attempted abortions? Such babies are sometimes born alive as a result of late-term induced labor abortions, often sought when babies are believed (sometimes in error) to have genetic defects such as Down syndrome.

Earlier this decade, such living, breathing, babies who survived labor were “shelved” – left to die and disposed of with other medical waste, or were “aborted” – killed outside the womb. The practice was ultimately banned by unanimous Congressional votes, as even the most pro-abortion Senate Democrats – including every defender of partial-birth abortion – recognized that killing these breathing babies is no longer abortion in any real sense. It crosses the line; it is infanticide. Yet, incredibly, Obama repeatedly worked to deny these living babies any right to life. …”

Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide

NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC Endorses Sen. Barack Obama

 Barack Obama, A Vote For Infanticide

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

“The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Public Law 108-105, HR 760, S 3, 18 U.S. Code 1531)[1] (or “PBA Ban”) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls partial-birth abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the term “partial-birth abortion” in the act pertains to a procedure that is scientifically called intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, “Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.” The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. …”

Most Who Know of Decision Agree With Supreme Court on Partial Birth Abortion

“…Overall, among all adults, 53% believe that abortion is morally wrong most of the time. Thirty-two percent (32%) disagree. Those numbers have changed little over the past year and there is virtually no difference of opinion between men and women. Upper-income Americans are the least likely to see abortion as morally wrong. Last year’s survey found that 61% of Americans know someone who has had an abortion.

By a 71% to 22% margin, Republicans believe that abortion is morally wrong most of the time. Democrats are evenly divided on that question.

Forty-five percent (45%) of American adults believe that it is too easy for a woman to get an abortion in the United States. Twenty-two percent (22%) say it is too hard while 21% say the balance is about right. Those numbers are little changed from a year ago.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans believe it is too easy for a woman to get an abortion. Just 14% of the GOP faithful believe it is too hard. Among Democrats, 36% believe it is too easy and 30% believe it is too hard. …”

Obama’s Stealth Pro-Abortion Stance

By Ned Barnett

“…In response to a Pennsylvania voter’s question about elementary school sex education, Obama said:

“Look, I got two daughters – nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
This makes two things clear. First, Senator Obama supports abortion on demand — even “convenience” abortions — for minors, including his own daughters; and second, Obama considers babies a “punishment” he’d rather spare his daughters, even if those daughters have to abort Obama’s own unborn grandchildren to avoid that particular “punishment.”
That unguardedly candid public statement is political dynamite — or it would be, if the media had reported on it.  Instead, four weeks later, America remains widely unaware of Senator Obama’s explosive position favoring on-demand convenience abortions for minors, or his equally explosive view of babies as a “punishment.” …”

Abortion and Presidential Politics, 2008

“…On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gonzalez vs. Carhart banning intact dilation and extraction (“partial birth abortion”) as an acceptable method of “ending fetal life,” the Democratic Party blanketed the state of South Carolina for the week preceding its first nationally-televised presidential debate of the season.  All the candidates criticized the Court’s decision in Carhart and several denounced it from the stage during the debate. 

Polls, however, demonstrate that two-thirds of Americans oppose late term abortions, as apparently did 63 Congressional Democrats and 17 Senate Democrats when they voted for the federal ban in 2003 – perhaps, before pandering to the deep-pocket Leftist ilk of George Soros and became de rigueur for the emblematic donkeys.  …”


Infanticide is the practice of someone intentionally causing the death of an infant. Often it is the mother who commits the act, but criminology recognises various forms of non-maternal child murder. In many past societies, certain forms of infanticide were considered permissible, whereas in most modern societies the practice is considered immoral and criminal. Nonetheless, it still takes place — in the Western world usually because of the parent’s mental illness or violent behavior, and in some poor countries as a form of population control, sometimes with tacit societal acceptance. Female infanticide is more common than the killing of male babies due to sex-selective infanticide. …”  

Abortion in the United States

Abortion in the United States is a highly-charged issue involving significant political and ethical debate. In medical terms, the word abortion refers to any pregnancy that does not end in a live birth and therefore can refer to a miscarriage or a premature birth that does not result in a live infant. Such events are often called spontaneous abortions if they occur before 20 weeks of gestation. In common parlance, however, abortion is used to mean “induced abortion” of an embryo or fetus at any point in pregnancy, and this is also how the term is used in a legal sense.[1] …”

“…According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 854,122 legal induced abortions in the US in 2003.[6]

CDC, 2003

 Abortions and ethnicity

Abortions are much more common among minority women in the U.S. In 2000-2001, the rates among black and Hispanic women were 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women.[7]

Dr. Lile PBA Partial Birth Abortion Demo Pro-Life

Abortion -This is a Suction Abortion

Abortion -This is a Dismemberment Abortion

Abortion -This is a Prostaglandin Abortion

The Silent Scream Part 1 2 3 4 5 ProLife Anti-Abortion Video

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM #1 (with permission from APF)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM #2 (with permission from APF)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM #3 (with permission from APF)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM #4 (with permission from APF) 

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM #5 (with permission from APF) 

CDC’s Abortion Surveillance System: FAQs

“…Abortion Surveillance Reports
Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2004 | adobe PDF logo View PDF 479KB
In 2004, 839,226 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. This total represents a 1.1 percent decrease from the 848,163 abortions reported for 2003. The abortion ratio for 2004 decreased since 2003. The ratio was 238 legal induced abortions per 1,000 live births in 2004. In 2004, the abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years of age, the same since 2000. For the same 47 reporting areas, the abortion rate remained relatively constant during 1998–2004. As in the past, a higher number of abortions were obtained by white women, unmarried women, and women under 25 years of age. More than half (61%) of the reported legal induced abortions were performed during the first 8 weeks of gestation; 88% were performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Source: MMWR 2007;56(SS-9);1–33.

Previous MMWR Abortion Surveillance Reports
2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995 | 1994–1993  1992 | 1991 | 1990 | 1989 | 1988 | 1987– 1986 | 1985–1984 | 1981  1980–1979

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

January 2008


Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

• In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

• Each year, about two out of every 100 women aged 15–44 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion.[3]

• At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45[4], and, at current rates, about one-third will have had an abortion.[5,6]

U.S. Abortion Total Hits Lowest Mark Since Year After Roe v. Wade

By Lawrence Jones

“The number of abortions nationwide has dropped to their lowest levels since the year following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision Roe v. Wade, according to the latest annual Abortion Surveillance report by the Center for Disease Control.

The documented number is the lowest since 1974, the year following the Supreme Court ruling that gave women the right to have an abortion. In that year, the CDC reported the total number of abortions to be 763,476.

There were 238 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2004, a decrease from 241 the year before. The abortion ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 in 1984, according to the report, and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline. …”

Deal Hudson: Obama and Infanticide?

“…The Roman Catholics for Obama Web site has no mention of his opposition to the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act. Look under its section “Life and Dignity of the Human Person,” and you will find statements on the death penalty, the Iraq War, gun control, and the promise to nurture “a socio-economic environment” that will provide “a safety net that will make abortion increasingly unnecessary and rare.”

Some of Obama’s infanticide apologists argue that since the declared intention of Obama in voting against the BAIP Act was to uphold Roe v. Wade then it was not evidence of “support for infanticide.” Such poor logic completely detaches Obama’s act of voting against the bill from its consequences. Without the passage of the bill, infants born in Illinois remained vulnerable to the lack of treatment witnessed first-hand in Christ Hospital by Jill Stanek.

It would be like a senator arguing that his vote to approve Iraq War funding was just to “support the troops” but not the war. How can you put a gun in a soldier’s hand without taking responsibility for what happens when he shoots it?

Democratic pundits don’t want to talk about Obama on abortion or infanticide, either. On a recent CNN broadcast, Wolf Blitzer asked Bill Bennett what he would ask Obama, if given the chance.

Bennett said he would ask Obama about his abortion extremism and why he “doesn’t see a problem with killing a baby after it’s been born after eight months.” …”

Barack Obama – Abortion

Barack Obama on Abortion

Obama and Latins

Barack Obama Addresses Planned Parenthood

Brit Hume: Planned Parenthood’s racism

Ingraham on O’Reilly: Planned Parenthood racism

Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood is the collective name of organizations worldwide who are members of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is the U.S. affiliate of IPPF and one of its larger members. PPFA provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services. The organization’s status as the United States’ leading provider of surgical abortions has put it in the forefront of national debate over that issue. Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. (PPAF) is a related organization that lobbies the U.S. political system for pro-choice legislation, comprehensive sex education, and access to affordable health care.[1] …” “…Planned Parenthood describes itself as “the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider.” In 2006, Planned Parenthood provided 289,750 surgical and medical abortions, about 3% of its total services.[2]

“…Planned Parenthood receives almost a third of its money in government grants and contracts ($336.7 million in FY 2007). Clinic income that same year totaled $356.1 million and miscellaneous operating revenues $56 million. Planned Parenthood is also heavily sponsored by private individuals, with over 900,000 active individual contributors.[2] Large foundations, such as the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, contribute a substantial part of the organization’s budget, and other wealthy businessmen, such as Bill Gates are also known to contribute money and time to the organization. …”

margaret sanger and planned parenthood

“…first part of an old 16 minute film created by Planned Parenthood primarily about its founder, margaret sanger. narrated by katherine hepburn!…”

margaret sanger and planned parenthood part 2

Margaret Sanger

Margaret Higgins Sanger (September 14, 1879September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, an advocate of negative eugenics, and the founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood). Initially met with fierce opposition to her ideas, Sanger gradually won some support, both in the public as well as the courts, for a woman’s choice to decide how and when, if ever, she will bear children. In her drive to open the way to universal access to birth control, Sanger was ahead of her time. However, her racist ideology and advocacy for eugenics are positions which have tarnished her reputation. …”


Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[2] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[3] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger.[4][5] [6] G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Funding was provided by prestigious sources such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Harriman family.[7] Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenics’ scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany. …”

“…During the 20th century, many countries enacted various eugenics policies and programs, including:

  • Genetic screening
  • Birth control
  • Promoting differential birth rates
  • Marriage restrictions
  • Segregation (both racial segregation as well as segregation of the mentally ill from the normal)
  • Compulsory sterilization
  • Forced abortions, or, conversely, forced pregnancies
  • Genocide  …”

Eugenics 103

Evolution and Eugenics

Barack Obama’s Speech on Father’s Day

Obama’s Twisted Mind – Obama’s sick voting record”

Networks Ignore Revealing Obama ‘Baby’ Gaffe
Candidate doesn’t want daughters “punished with a baby.” 

By Brian Fitzpatrick

“…Speaking off the cuff to a Johnstown, Pennsylvania audience, Obama said:  

When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include abstinence education and teaching children that sex is not something casual.  But it should also include other information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters, nine years old and six years old.  I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.  But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.  I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. 

Despite intensive coverage of the fight for the Democratic nomination, and condemnations of the remark from growing numbers of religious and pro-life organizations, we haven’t found a word about Obama’s colossal gaffe on ABC, NBC or CBS’s morning and evening news broadcasts as of the afternoon of April 2. …”

Louis Farrakhan on Barack Obama, Churches and Satan’s Rule

Minister Farrakhan Speaks About Barack Obama

Hillary vs. Partial Birth Abortion

Coulter – Hillary Enjoys Torture, Obama Like Hitler

Charlie Rose: June 12, 1996

Neil Cavuto’s interview of George Soros Part 1

Neil Cavuto’s interview of George Soros Part 2

George Soros

“…In December of 2006, Soros met with Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama in his New York office. Soros had previously hosted a fund-raiser for Obama during the latter’s 2004 campaign for the Senate. On January 16, 2007, Obama announced the creation of a presidential exploratory committee, and within hours Soros sent the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount allowable under campaign finance laws. Later that week the New York Daily News reported that Soros would back Obama over Senator Hillary Clinton, whom he had also supported in the past. Soros’s announcement was seen as a repudiation of Clinton’s presidential aspirations, though Soros said he would support the New York senator were she to win the Democratic nomination. …”

“…Soros and his foundations have had a hand in funding a host of leftist organizations, including the Tides Foundation; the Tides Center; the National Organization for Women; Feminist Majority; the American Civil Liberties Union; People for the American Way; Alliance for JusticeNARAL Pro-Choice America; America Coming Together; the Center for American Progress; Campaign for America’s Future; Amnesty International; the Sentencing Project; the Center for Community Change; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Human Rights Watch; the Prison Moratorium Project; the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; the National Lawyers Guild; the Center for Constitutional Rights; the Coalition for an International Criminal Court; The American Prospect;; Planned Parenthood; the Nation Institute; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Ms. Foundation for Women;  the National Security Archive Fund; the Pacifica Foundation; Physicians for Human Rights; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Urban Institute; the American Friends Service Committee; Catholics for a Free Choice; Human Rights First; the Independent Media InstituteMADRE; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Forum; the National Council of La Raza; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee; and the Peace and Security Funders Group. …”

George Soros: Open Society and Open Borders

James H. Walsh
Tuesday, July 25, 2006 

“…To support his belief that the human mind cannot fathom ultimate truth and reality, Soros apparently advocates the deconstruction of nations by educating the masses in open-society jargon. 

His open society comes off as a bastardization of socialism and libertarianism. This mixed brew includes more taxes (but not on the Soros fortune), increased government spending, open borders, immigration entitlements for legal and illegal aliens, devaluing citizenship but promoting feminism, free abortions, affirmative action, and sex and gender rights. Incongruously he would lessen government intrusion while eliminating “excessive individualism.” Essential to an open society is destruction of the nation-state authority, family structure, and religious beliefs, thus rendering national culture, heritage, and ethos meaningless. …”

“…Organizations that receive Soros funding, directly or indirectly, include Human Rights Watch, the Center for American Progress, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the New Democrat Network (NDN). As an example of what these organizations do, the NDN operates the Hispanic Strategy Center to assist immigrants, legal and illegal. The goal is to extend the vote to all non-citizens and to assure that they vote the Democratic ticket. 

The old bromides–environmental degradation, abortion, anti-war, poverty, human rights, justice for all, health care for all, and peace at any price are being doled out to a new generation in the hope that enough naïve, poorly educated U.S. citizens will support the open-society agenda. …”

George Soros, Postmodern Villain

“…Why is Soros so interested in promoting more abortions in Eastern Europe? Overpopulation cannot be the reason: The region is experiencing a colossal demographic collapse and has some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. Unavailability of abortion cannot be the answer either: According to a recent U.N. report, five European countries had more abortions than live births in 2000-the Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Belarus, Rumania, and Ukraine. Overall, the report said, abortion rates are “substantially higher in central and eastern Europe and the CIS countries than in western Europe and North America.” The only logical answer is that Soros wants as few Russians and others born into this world as possible. …”

“…That polity will not be “American” in any recognizable sense if Soros has his way, however. Here, he supports increased government spending and tax increases, drug legalization, euthanasia, open borders and immigration, immigrant entitlements, feminism, free abortion on demand, affirmative action, and “gay” rights. He opposes the death penalty in any circumstance. …”

Soros the Guiltless

By James Lewis

“…George Soros absolves himself constantly. He calls himself a “spectator” when he was an active collaborator. His only reply is that, well, he could have been “on the other side” — a victim rather than a perp. His is an instrumental morality.

Now we don’t know exactly what happened sixty years ago in the life of György Schwartz during the Nazi Holocaust. According to Robert Slater, “George Soros later said that he ‘grew up in a Jewish, anti-semitic home,’ and that his parents were ‘uncomfortable with their religious roots.'”   We don’t know if his parents’ anti-semitism influenced his willingness to cart off the property of his Jewish neighbors. But by 1944, Hitler’s plans for the Jews could not be denied. Soros himself escaped persecution by being adopted as a Christian. He must have known what he was doing therefore, even as a teenager. Two years later, when Auschwitz and the other death camps made headlines all over the Western world, not even the young Soros could have denied his role in what happened. But George Soros felt free of guilt. …”

“…Soros seems to think of capitalism as a kind of piracy, and personal morality does not seem to play a conspicuous role in his life. Instead, he seems to like to be the supreme manipulator.

It makes an interesting psychological profile, doesn’t it? On the one side, calm denial about his Holocaust role in Hungary, and decades later, about his part in manipulating currencies from Britain to Asia, benefiting himself but impoverishing others. On the other hand, his funding of very aggressive political mudslinging teams in the United States, openly trying to bring down a twice-elected president of the United States. Add to that his animosity toward Israel, a home for Jewish refugees from the same European Holocaust that saw him collaborating with the Nazis.

We live in a time of steady public decline in civilized values. The Left shamelessly peddles the idea that real patriotism means leaking national security secrets when our soldiers are risking their lives in combat. The national media have become so vulgarized that scapegoating GOP presidents has become the open aim of the “profession” of journalism. Opportunistic demagogues like Al Gore jump on the phony Global Warming bandwagon, and are awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, thus raising his public image while debasing the Nobel Prize.

We have seen immense vulgarization in one generation, a loss of simple decency in public life. Much of that decline has been deliberately pushed by the Left and the tabloid press, which is no longer separate from the “mainstream” press. Sociopathy is flying high. …”

Mike Savage – Barack Obama – Baby Killer & Gay Agenda Part1

Keyes-Obama debate 2 (Death Penalty and Abortion)

Paul Johnson

Paul Johnson (born Paul Bede Johnson on 2 November 1928 in Manchester, England) is a British Roman Catholic journalist, historian, speechwriter and author. He was educated at Stonyhurst College, and Magdalen College, Oxford. Johnson first came to prominence in the 1950s as a journalist writing for, and later editing, the New Statesman magazine. A prolific writer, he has written over 40 books and contributed to numerous magazines and newspapers. Whilst associated with the left in his early career, he is now a prominent conservative popular historian. …”

Frederick Hayek

Friedrich August von Hayek, CH (May 8, 1899 – March 23, 1992) was an Austrian-British economist and political philosopher known for his defence of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought in the mid-20th century. He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century.[1] One of the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics, he also made significant contributions in the fields of jurisprudence and cognitive science. He shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics with ideological rival Gunnar Myrdal “for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.”[2] He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991.[3] He is considered to be one of the major forces of change from the dominant interventionist and Keynesian policies of the first part of the 20th century to the more market friendly, less state controlled and liberal policies after the 1980s. …”

The Road to Serfdom

The Road to Serfdom is a book written by Friedrich Hayek (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974) and originally published by Routledge Press in March 1944 in the UK and then by the University of Chicago in September 1944. In April, 1945, Reader’s Digest published a slightly shortened version of the book (still in print from the Institute of Economic Affairs), which eventually reached more than 600,000 readers. Around 1950 a picture-book version was published in Look Magazine, later made into a pamphlet and distributed by General Motors. The book has been translated into approximately 20 languages and is dedicated to “The socialists of all parties”. The introduction to the 50th anniversary edition is written by Milton Friedman (another recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics [1976]). In 2007, the University of Chicago Press put out a “Definitive Edition”. The Road to Serfdom is among the most influential and popular expositions of classical liberalism and libertarianism.

This single book has significantly shaped the political ideologies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and the concepts of ‘Reagonomics’ and ‘Thatcherism’. It also led to the revival of Neoclassical economics in the West and lessening the Keynesian influence.

The Road from Serfdom: Forseeing the Fall

Thomas W. Hazlett

“…Reason: Are you optimistic about the future of freedom?

Hayek: Yes. A qualified optimism. I think there is an intellectual reversion on the way, and there is a good chance it may come in time before the movement in the opposite direction becomes irreversible. I am more optimistic than I was 20 years ago, when nearly all the leaders of opinion wanted to move in the socialist direction. This has particularly changed in the younger generation. So, if the change comes in time, there still is hope.”

Mao Zedong


Joseph Stalin

Joseph Stalin

Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler

War on the Weak by Liam Dunaway / Eugenics Legislation Video


Sir Francis Galton – Father of Eugenics

Euthanasia Program: Action T4

Action T4 (German: Aktion T4) was a program in Nazi Germany officially between 1939 and 1941, during which the regime of Adolf Hitler systematically killed between 200,000 to 250,000[1] people with intellectual or physical disabilities. Performed unofficially after 1941, the killing became less systematic.[2] The codename T4 was an abbreviation of “Tiergartenstraße 4”, the address of a villa in the Berlin borough of Tiergarten which was the headquarters of the General Foundation for Welfare and Institutional Care (Gemeinnützige Stiftung für Heil- und Anstaltspflege).[3] This body operated under the direction of Philipp Bouhler, the head of Hitler’s private chancellery,[4] and Dr Karl Brandt, Hitler’s personal physician. This villa no longer exists, but a plaque set in the pavement on Tiergartenstraße marks its location.

The T4 program developed from the Nazi Party’s policy of “racial hygiene,” the belief that the German people needed to be “cleansed” of “racially unsound” elements, which included people with disabilities. The program set important precedents for the later Holocaust of the Jews of Europe: the historian Ian Kershaw has called it “a vital step in the descent into modern barbarism.”[5]


Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”[1]

In Cold Blood Trailer



Barack Obama TV AD – BRAND NEW, JUNE 2008

Barack Obama TV AD #2 JUNE 2008


Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

1 Minute Voter Guide Video: Killer of American Dreams–Barack Obama–Radical Socialist

The First Previable Puppet Presidential Candidate: Barack Obama

Outting Obama: Radical Racist Rabble Rouser Reader 

Voters Beware: The Radical Rules of Saul Alinsky and Leftist Democrats

Obama and McCain–Socialism and Appeasement!

Clinton & Obama: First They Lie To You and Then They Steal Your Property!

Barack Obama: A Watermellon Man–Green on The Outside–Red on The Inside

Fathers, Mothers and Babies for Senator John McCain!

Barack Obama Throws His White Grandma Under The Bus–Backs Up and Does It Again–Amazing!

Barack Obama–Damaged Goods–Birds of A Feather Flock Together

Barack Obama Cult?

Barack Obama–A Reader Not A Leader!  


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 127 so far )

Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet?

Posted on October 15, 2007. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Economics, Links, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Science, Uncategorized, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |


 “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

~ H.L. Mencken


“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

~Al Gore

 An “over-representation” is a lie.  Lawyers call it a material misrepresentation.

Al Gore’s biggest whopper or lie in An Inconvenient Truth, both the film and book, is the 20 feet sea level rise by 2100.

This is in sharp contrast to the 2 feet maximum prediction of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Both Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 on October 12, 2007.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its report of February 2007 projected sea level gains of 18-59 centimeters (7-23 inches) by 2100 with temperature rises of 1.8-4.0 Celsius (3.2-7.8 Farenheit).

 An Inconvenient Truth Trailer

Charlie Rose – Al Gore

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2

Michael Crichton on Global Warming, Part 1 of 3

Michael Crichton on Global Warming, Part 2 of 3 

Michael Crichton on Global Warming, Part 3 of 3  

 “Considering all of these influences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the global average sea level will rise by 7.2 to 23.6 inches (18-59 cm or 0.18- 0.59m) by 2100 (see Figure 1) relative to 1980-1999 under a range of scenarios.

Sea Level Rise Projections to 2100

This graph shows projected changes in sea level between the years 1990 and 2100 under six different emissions scenarios. Under the lowest emissions scenario, sea level is projected to rise 3.5 inches by the end of the century; under the highest scenario it is projected to rise 34.6 inches. The sea level rise projected under each of the other scenarios falls between these two extremes.

 Past and projected global average sea level. The gray shaded area shows the estimates of sea level change from 1800 to 1870 when measurements are not available. The red line is a reconstruction of sea level change measured by tide gauges with the surrounding shaded area depicting the uncertainty. The green line shows sea level change as measured by satellite. The purple shaded area represents the range of model projections for a medium growth emissions scenario (IPCC SRES A1B). For reference 100mm is about 4 inches. Source: IPCC (2007) 

To the Future Sea Level Changes page.

Note that these estimates assume that ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica will continue at the same rates as observed from 1993-2003. The IPCC cautions that these rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if ice flow were to increase linearly, in step with global average temperature, the upper range of projected sea level rise by the year 2100 would be 19.2 to 31.6 inches (48-79 cm or 0.48-0.79 m). But current understanding of ice sheet dynamics is too limited to estimate such changes or to provide an upper limit to the amount by which sea level is likely to rise over this century.”


Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level

Sea level rise

“…17. Over the last 100 years, the global sea level has risen by about 10 to 25 cm.

Sea level change is difficult to measure. Relative sea level changes have been derived mainly from tide-gauge data. In the conventional tide-gauge system, the sea level is measured relative to a land-based tide-gauge benchmark. The major problem is that the land experiences vertical movements (e.g. from isostatic effects, neotectonism, and sedimentation), and these get incorporated into the measurements. However, improved methods of filtering out the effects of long-term vertical land movements, as well as a greater reliance on the longest tide-gauge records for estimating trends, have provided greater confidence that the volume of ocean water has indeed been increasing, causing the sea level to rise within the given range.

It is likely that much of the rise in sea level has been related to the concurrent rise in global temperature over the last 100 years. On this time scale, the warming and the consequent thermal expansion of the oceans may account for about 2-7 cm of the observed sea level rise, while the observed retreat of glaciers and ice caps may account for about 2-5 cm. Other factors are more difficult to quantify. The rate of observed sea level rise suggests that there has been a net positive contribution from the huge ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, but observations of the ice sheets do not yet allow meaningful quantitative estimates of their separate contributions. The ice sheets remain a major source of uncertainty in accounting for past changes in sea level because of insufficient data about these ice sheets over the last 100 years. …”

Al Gore’s ‘nine Inconvenient Untruths’

“…The nine alleged errors in the film

  • Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia”.”The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
  • The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
  • The documentary speaks of global warming “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
  • Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.
  • Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
  • The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that “it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
  • Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.
  • Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice” The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.
  • Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult. …”

     UK Gov’t Helps Teachers Deal With Gore’s Climate Errors 

    political issues)

    No wonder a judge in the United Kingdom found nine errors including Al Gore’s big whopper in his ruling on An Inconveniet Truth:

    “…The High Court has indicated that schools can lawfully show AIT to pupils without breaching ss. 406 or 407 of the Education Act 1996, but that, in doing so they must bear in mind the following points: AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about those views; in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore.s view may be inaccurate or departs from that of mainstream scientific opinion; where the film suggests that viewers should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view. …”

    teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote

     The bigger the lie, the bigger the prize.

     Al Gore has at least been consistent on warning about global warming for twenty years. He also has a propensity to quote Winston Churchill.

     Here is one quotation from Winston Churchill that he appears to have overlooked. 

    “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” 

    ~Winston Churchill 

     Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was best described by Paul Johnson, British author and historian, and Presidential Medal of Freedom award recipient:

    Beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language. For the fact that they do is proof positive that their argument is false, and proof presumptive that they know it is. A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honourable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status.”

    ~Paul Johnson



    Stossel To Gore–“Give Me A Break”

    Looks like John Stossel is going to rain on Al Gore’s Nobel Prize parade/panic attack for a global warming planetary emergency.

    Watch the 20/20 show Friday, October 19, 2007 at 8 P.M. Eastern time on ABC.

    John Stossel Exposes Global Warming Myths

    “…In a release from ABC previewing Stossel’s report on Friday’s “20/20,” the veteran newsman and Newsmax pundit – who won 19 Emmys exposing scammers and con artists – says:

    “This week on ‘20/20’ (in our new 8 p.m. Eastern time slot) I say ‘Give Me a Break!’ to our Nobel Prize-winning Vice President.

    “Mr. Gore says ‘The debate is over,’ and those who disagree with his take on global warming have been ‘purchased’ in order to create ‘the illusion of a debate.’ Nonsense. It’s as if the Vice President and his allies in the environmental movement plan to win the debate through intimidation. I interview some scientists who won’t be intimidated, even though one has had his life threatened for speaking up.

    “The Vice President’s much-applauded movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ claims warming is man’s fault and a coming crisis! While the earth has certainly warmed over the last century, plenty of independent scientists say scientists cannot be sure that man caused the warming or that warming will be a crisis.

    “They say the computer models that are used to predict the disasters don’t include important variables because scientists don’t fully understand them. For example, warming may cause cloud formations that reflect sun and cool the earth. The computer models cannot know. These scientists call global warming activism more of a religious movement than science.”

    Gore’s film is filled with “misleading messages,” says Stossel. …”


    “…I suspect that next year’s government boondoggle will be massive spending on carbon-reducing technology.

    “It reminds me of George Mason University Economics Department Chairman Don Boudreax’s suggestion that such schemes really mean ‘government seizing enormous amounts of additional power in order to embark upon schemes of social engineering – schemes whose pursuit gratifies the abstract fantasies of the theory class and, simultaneously, lines the very real pockets of politically powerful corporations, organizations, and “experts.”’

    “He is so right. The abstract fantasies of the theory class will soon send huge chunks of your money to politicians, friends, activist scientists, and politically savvy corporations.

    “The debate is over? That makes me say GIVE ME A BREAK!”

    Background Articles and Videos


    New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

    “…Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes (“fingerprints”) over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

    The conclusion is that climate change is “unstoppable” and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.  …”

    The Great Global Warming Swindle

    An Inconvenient Truth

    Gore as climate exaggerator

    Well, the “consensus” of climate scientists as represented in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 inches to 35 inches with a central value of 19 inches. Nineteen inches is not nothing and is 3 times greater than the sea level rise the world experienced during the 20th century, but Manhattan and most of Florida will most likely still be above water in 2100. A new study in Science concluded if temperatures rose steeply that the Greenland ice sheet might melt away in 500 to 1000 years. So fortunately we don’t have to worry about the impact of 100 million people fleeing relentlessly rising seas all at once, though it would be a good idea for builders and insurance companies to keep the projected rise in sea level in mind. …”

    Global Warming-Doomsday Called Off is the documentary that should have gotten the Academy Award for Best Documentary!

    Part 4 of 5 below covers Sea Level Changes

    Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (1/5) 

    Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (2/5) 

    Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (3/5) 

    Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (4/5) 

    Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (5/5)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 1/9)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 2/9)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 3/9)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 4/9)


    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 5/9)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 6/9)



    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 7/9)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 8/9)

    Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of CO2 part 1

    Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of CO2 part 2

    “Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels.

    He examnines the hypothesis and it fails the test. Does this surprise you?…”

    Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4 

    Climate change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4 

    Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt 3 of 4

    Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4

    There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
    By Bob Carter

    David Evans – Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming

    Global cooling not warming

    Unstoppable Solar Cycles

    Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1

    Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2

    Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 1)


    Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 2)


    Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 3)


    Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 4)


    Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 5)


    Global Warming Hoax

    Another Global Warming Hoax exposed 

    James Hansen concerned IPCC ignores danger of ice sheet melt

    NASA’s Hansen Reaches Escape Velocity

    “…Dr. Hansen is a math modeler in the climate change game. How does he get Planetary Doom from a math model? It’s very simple. You build in “positive feedback loops.” That is, you look in the vast toolbox of climate variables to find just two factors that might reinforce each other in a catastrophic loop. For instance, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might create a greenhouse effect, which causes more heating, which causes more water evaporation, which causes more greenhouse effect, which causes more heating, etc., etc. Keep looping that, and you raise world temps by just one degree Centigrade, so the polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise, up to 25 meters. See? It’s easy.

    The big problem with this scenario is that the climate system almost certainly has negative feedback loops, i.e., causal connections that work to bring temperatures back to a rough baseline. The climate is likely to have self-regulation mechanisms in much the way that our bodies have self-regulating loops to stabilize our temperature, blood sugar, and a hundred other variables. Why does that seem likely? Because the world hasn’t burned up or drowned in quite a long time, even though temperature variations and greenhouse gases have existed for many millions of years. Such factors as clouds and air particulates are believed to lower temperatures. With a little imagination we could easily build math models for self-regulating loops that would tend to stabilize temperatures. (But it might be hard to swing the federal grant support for those models.) …”

    IPCC Member: NASA’s Hansen Moving ‘Dangerously Away From Scientific Discourse to Advocacy’

    Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today

    Gorey Truths
    25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

    Al Gore Debates Global Warming

    Authors@Google: Bjorn Lomborg

    Climate is too complex for accurate predictions 

    SCIENCE: Earth climate is too complex to predict

    Statement: Thinning of West Antarctic Ice Sheet Demands Improved Monitoring to Reduce Uncertainty over Potential Sea-Level Rise

    The consensus view of the workshop:

    • Satellite observations show that both the grounded ice sheet and the floating ice shelves of the Amundsen Sea Embayment have thinned over the last decades.
    • Ongoing thinning in the grounded ice sheet is already contributing to sea-level rise.
    • The thinning of the ice has occurred because melting beneath the ice shelves has increased, reducing the friction holding back the grounded ice sheet and causing faster flow.
    • Oceanic changes have caused the increased ice-shelf melting. The observed average warming of the global ocean has not yet notably affected the waters reaching the base of the ice shelves. However, recent changes in winds around Antarctica caused by human influence and/or natural variability may be changing ocean currents, moving warmer waters under the ice shelves.
    • Our understanding of ice-sheet flow suggests the possibility that too much melting beneath ice shelves will lead to “runaway” thinning of the grounded ice sheet. Current understanding is too limited to know whether, when, or how rapidly this might happen, but discussions at the meeting included the possibility of several feet of sea-level rise over a few centuries from changes in this region.
    • The experts agreed that to reduce the very large uncertainties concerning the behavior of the Antarctic ice in the Amundsen Sea Embayment will require new satellite, ground, and ship-based observations coupled to improved models of the ice-ocean-atmosphere system. Issues include:
    • The recent changes were discovered by satellite observations; however, continued monitoring of some of these changes is not possible because of a loss of capability in current and funded satellite missions.
    • The remoteness of this part of Antarctica from existing stations continues to limit the availability of ground observations essential to predicting the future of the ice sheet.
    • No oceanographic observations exist beneath the ice shelves, and other oceanographic sampling is too infrequent and sparse to constrain critical processes.
    • Current continental-scale ice sheet models are inadequate for predicting future sea level rise because they omit important physical processes.
    • Current global climate models do not provide information essential for predicting ice sheet and oceanic changes in the Amundsen Sea Embayment; for example, ice shelves are not included.


    Resolving these issues will substantially improve our ability to predict the future sea level contribution from the Amundsen Sea Embayment of the Antarctic Ice Sheet.

    Changes in Sea-Level associated with Modifications of the Mass Balance of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets over the 21st Century  


    Changes in runoff from Greenland and Antarctica are often cited as one of the major concerns linked to anthropogenic changes in climate. The changes in mass balance, and associated changes in sea-level, of these two ice sheets are examined by comparing the predictions of the six possible combinations of two climate models and three methods for estimating melting and runoff. All models are solved on 20 and 40 km grids respectively for Greenland and Antarctica. The two temperature based runoff parameterizations give adequate results for Greenland, less so for Antarctica. The energy balance based approach, which relies on an explicit modelling of the temperature and density structure within the snow cover, gives similar results when coupled to either climate model. The Greenland ice sheet, for a reference climate scenario similar to the IPCC’s IS92a, is not expected to contribute significantly to changes in the level of the ocean over the 21st century. The changes in mass balance in Antarctica are dominated by the increase in snowfall, leading to a decrease in sea-level of $ \sim$ 4 cm by 2100. The range of uncertainty in these predictions is estimated by repeating the calculation with the simpler climate model for seven climate change scenarios. Greenland would increase the level of the oceans by 0 – 2 cm, while Antarctica would decrease it by 2.5 – 6.5 cm. The combined effect of both ice sheets lowers the sea-level by 2.5 – 4.5 cm over the next 100 years, this represents a $ \sim$ 25% reduction of the sea-level rise estimated from thermal expansion alone. This surprisingly small range of uncertainty is due to cancellations between the effects of the two ice sheets. For the same reason, the imposition of the Kyoto Protocol has no impact on the prediction of sea-level change due to changes in Greenland and Antarctica, when compared to a reference scenario in which emissions are allowed to grow unconstrained. …” 

    Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets

    Andrew Shepherd1 and Duncan Wingham2* 

    After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth’s ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models.

    1 Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK.
    2 Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, WC1E 6BT

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007

    On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century

    S. J. Holgate

    Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK


    Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.

    Received 17 October 2006; accepted 21 November 2006; published 4 January 2007.  ”

    Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
    Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion
    A critique of the 26 April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen made to
    the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming
    of the United States House of Representatives entitled
    “Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate”
    Prepared by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso
    Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 6 June 2007

    “…After a careful study of the claims made by James Hansen in his testimony of 26 April 2007 to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the US House of Representatives, we find that much of what he contends is contradicted by real-world observations.Although Hansen speaks of a sea level rise this century measured in meters, due to “the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions arising from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise of only 35 millimeters, based on the results of 14 satellite-derived estimates of imbalances of the polar ice sheets that have been obtained since 1998. In addition, whereas Hansen claims that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, century-scale data sets indicate that the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all over the latter part of the 20th century or has actually slowed.Another of Hansen’s claims that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are “skyrocketing,” for several studies of methane (which has historically provided a climate forcing equivalent to approximately half that provided by CO2) have demonstrated that its atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has ceased to rise further. This development – which was totally unanticipated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the time of its last major report, and which was vehemently denied to even be occurring when it was first observed – effectively repudiates Hansen’s contentions about the need to act immediately to curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for this unforeseen circumstance has already done more than humanity could ever hope to do in the foreseeable future in terms of reducing the atmosphere’s radiative impetus for warming; and it has thereby given us considerable extra time to determine what the true status of earth’s climate really is, as well as what we should, or should not, do about it. …” 

    The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’

    Some facts about greenhouse and global warming
    Updated August 2007

    Suggested additional reading:

    The Global Warming Scare

    David Pratt

    November 2006


    1. Introduction
    2. The ever-changing climate
    3. IPCC pseudoscience challenged
    4. CO2 fixation, Kyoto and beyond
    5. Sun and climate
    6. Modelling fantasies
    7. Global alarmism
    8. New science and technology
    9. Sources 

    The Global Warming Hoax

    Dennis Miller unloads on Al Gore, other greens

    So what is the “true status” of earth’s climate? It is perhaps best understood by noting that the earth is not any warmer now – and is possibly a fair amount cooler – than it was at many other times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when – in all six cases – the air’s CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. …” 

    Man vs. Nature

    Challenging Conventional Views About Global Warming


    Should be on YouTube shortly for those who cannot catch the show in the USA.

    Now the report is on YouTube!

    Make up your own mind. 

    “What you think is true may not be so.”   

    20/20 Stossel- GMAB – Al Gore Global Warming Debate

    Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 81 so far )

    Liked it here?
    Why not try sites on the blogroll...