1070 is without a doubt a divisive piece of legislation. After reading several opinions and analyses I am more inclined to support the law and the state of Arizona’s efforts to limit illegal immigration within its borders, but what concerns me even more is the way the media supports the opposition to this law and the methods of the opposition.

The Tea Party Movement is vilified and ridiculed in the media as a bunch ignorant white people opposed to anything and everything that Obama supports. The truth though is that the Tea Party Movement is organized with rally’s that draw attention to the problems that arise when the federal government continues to expand its role in the lives of all Americans. For the most part, and I stress most part, Tea Partiers refrain from ad hominem attacks and stick to the key messages that we are taxed too much and do not want to support those that would rather opt for a free ride from the government than work. Most importantly though, Tea Partiers do not resort to threats and vandalism to convey their message.

This is dramatically different from the way those opposed to SB 1070 are organizing. At no point in the year plus that the Tea Party has held its rallies has any of the millions of protesters done anything on the level of drawing a swastika in refried beans on a capitol building. Can you imagine the reaction if a Tea Partier had done anything on this level? It would be all over the news and it would fuel the media’s storyline of ignorant racists, but when the SB 1070 protesters do so, it is but a sub-note in the noble protest that these downtrodden are waging against the racist government that wants them to show proof they are citizens of this country.

I do realize that this is just one example out of the thousands of individuals protesting, but I still contend that nothing on this level was ever done at any of the tea party protests in the past year all over the country. And while I have not been to any of the protests in opposition to SB 1070, I do have the experience of the endless facebook statuses from liberal friends. The facebook messages are hardly peaceful in their nature, calling for people to purposefully not carry identification in protest and tag lines with phrases such as “why is my skin color a crime?” The Tea Partiers may have signs that are controversial, but the flagship groups for the movement do not make claims that are 100 percent false. The SB 1070 protesters are saying things and making claims that anyone who supports this bill is inherently racist, which I find wholly inaccurate…and the media not only lets them get away with it but supports them.

This does not even go into the ludicrous calls for boycotts by the MLB all-star game and conventions that are pulling out of the state. Arizona is not a state full of right-wing radicals; this bill made it through the legislative process just as any other bill would have to and from what I understand the majority of people who are directly affected by the bill (the ones who legally in Arizona) support it. It is the people from the outside such Al Sharpton who want to turn this into something that it is not…an unwarranted racist attack on minorities. The next phase is already starting to take place and the Hollywood stars picking up on it as a trendy issue to get involved in and we Saturday Night Live joining the chorus and George Lopez making comments about it during an NBA playoff game.

I realize this is a divisive issue even within the Republican Party, but what is intolerable is the way that I am vilified as a working white male for not opposing the law and the way the media embraces these tactics, all of which is in stark contrast to the way the Tea Party Movement is portrayed. Sometimes it is almost enough to make you want to give up. I just want the media to scrutinize those that scrutinize the government evenly, is that too much to ask?

erry Brown doesn’t have anyone on his campaign team that speaks Spanish.

On Saturday Univision held a statewide televised debate between a the surrogates of Meg Whitman and the Jerry Brown gubernatorial campaigns.

There was a scheduling issue, it seems that Attorney General Jerry Brown doesn’t have anyone on his staff to offer for a Spanish speaking debate.

That’s right – Jerry Brown has no Spanish speaking member on his gubernatorial campaign team. One wonders how he is “communicating with the base of the Latino worker in California” if he has a language barrier.

The California Democrat Party had to bail him out in offering their communications director for the afternoon. Hence, it makes for some very interesting listening and reading here at HOGUE NEWS’ exclusive coverage of the Univision debate.

If you’re wondering, Steve Poizner was not invited to the 30-minute debate round table. He cancelled for the ‘third time’ and Univision moved on.

As you watch this debate focus your attention on a few vital areas of interest:

• Brown’s lack of specifics
• Questions about Meg buying the election
• Numerous directives surrounding the issue of immigration.

The Univision hosts are Johanna Sanchez  and Santiago Lucero. The campaign surrogates are Hector Barajas (Meg Whitman) and Tenoch Flores (Jerry Brown), the current Democrat Party Communications Director.

Tenoch: Jerry Brown has the experience, he is speaking with community groups. Groups like the Latino community, groups of workers, educators, and he is meeting with them to find out what we can do to have a budget that works for all of California.

Hector: The reality is that Jerry Brown does not have a plan. More than 40 years.(Tenoch interrupts)…wait, wait left me finish. More than 40 years in state government and now he is getting together with people, they are trying to find out, trying to find out what they want, what they are going to do (This was being said in a mocking way). The thing is, if he is not ready to be a leader than he needs to step to the side. There are seven Democrats running to be the Democratic gubernatorial nominee. And at this point, he has already been Governor, Mayor of Oakland, if he doesn’t know what he is going to do and he doesn’t have a plan, than why doesn’t just say that?

Santiago: Let me interrupt. Tenoch.

Techoch: Jerry Brown has been accused of various things and one of them is that he does not have specifics. But he does have specifics….(Hector interrupts)

Hector: Where are they? We don’t see them. Where are they? (Santiago interrupts)

Santiago: There are some independent voters, and this question will also be for Tenoch and also for you Hector. They understand Brown’s long record, his dedication to California, and they say that today they prefer Meg Whitman, because she has experience in the business world and can create jobs.

My question is to you Hector, if she comes from this corporate world, this world also lets go of people, when things go wrong. The criticism that Meg Whitman receives is that she cannot lead a state as if she were the president of a corporation, in this case like if she was in charge of eBay.

Hector: Knowing how to balance a budget is important, that not only occurs in business, but in our own households. At the same time, knowing that if certain programs are no longer functioning or moving our cause forward, you need to cut them. (Santiago interrupts)

Santiago: She has said that she will let go of 40,000 state workers. So she begins with a plan to let go of people.

Hector: It is about not filling those empty slots, but at the same time, knowing what programs are no longer working. If we create a program today, it will never end. If the program stops functioning in five years, why fund them? That is part of the problem we have, we have programs after programs after programs. And if we are talking about Jerry Brown’s experience, what type of experience did he have when he was in Oakland? Debts, higher homicide rates, and when he was the governor of California he left us with a debt.

Tenoch: That is not true. Jerry Brown when he was governor of California, there were new jobs created in California, we began to invest in clean energy, which is something important for this state (gets interrupted by Hector).

Hector: In 1976?

Tenoch: And let me just say, Meg Whitman begins with cutting 40,000 jobs, there are 2.6 million people without jobs (Hector interrupts).

Hector: So how are we going to balance the budget, with the $20 billion? How? That is what I want to know.

Tenoch: Cutting 40,000 jobs is not the solution, how can you do that?

Johanna: We are going to speak about the budget a little later on, but first we want to show Jerry Brown’s platform. When he announced his candidacy for the Democrat Party, we had an opportunity to talk with him over some issues important to Latinos and this is what he told us:

What Congress doesn’t want you to know about this land grab!

 The U.S. would transform, overnight, into a bilingual nation. At least half of Puerto Ricans do not speak English, the language of our U.S. Constitution and founding documents.  From the  Washington Times article.

“Puerto Rican statehood,” analyzes all the implications of adding a foreign language-speaking state to the Union.

It would bring immediate demands for massive federal spending.  The average income of Puerto Ricans is less than half that of our poorest state, and infrastructure and the environment are far below American standards. Puerto Rico has a population with a median national income of $17,741, nearly a third of that for the U.S.

Puerto Rico is already a democracy.  Despite the bill’s deceptive title, Puerto Rico already has an elected government and exists as a self-governed commonwealth of the U.S.

Statehood would give Puerto Rico more congressional representation than 25 of our 50 states!  It would inevitably give Democrats two additional U.S. Senators and 6 to 8 additional Members of the House.  Because the Representation is capped at 435 in the House, some states would be forced to give up some of their own Representatives in Congress.

H.R. 2499 is stealth legislation designed to lead to the admission of Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico as the 51st state, thereby making us a de facto bilingual nation, like Canada.  Only half of the population speaks English. The U.S. Congress should not be forcing Puerto Ricans to vote on statehood, especially since the Puerto Rican people have rejected statehood three times since 1991!

No Member of Congress who describes himself as a limited government, fiscal conservative should be casting a YEA vote for H.R. 2499, as Puerto Rican statehood would cause an immediate increase in federal expenditures, particularly for taxpayer-funded welfare state services.

It is estimated that 50% of the population would qualify for welfare on day one!

Costs to the US Government is estimated to be in the billions! (Note if it costs the Government it means it costs you!)  I would rather see more cops on the streets than admit any state.

Sponsored by Puerto Rican delegate Pedro Pierluisi (D), the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) – which has reared its ugly head a number of times over the past few congresses but has yet to have any success – would require Puerto Ricans to hold a national referendum to decide if they want Puerto Rico to remain a self-governing U.S. commonwealth, or become the 51st state.

The referendum would be set up as two plebiscites which would effectively deceive Puerto Ricans into voting for statehood. 

In the first round of votes, the Puerto Rican people would be given the choice between remaining a U.S. territory and “pursuing a different political status.”  What? If the majority votes to maintain the status quo, this bill would require that Puerto Rico vote on this same issue every eight years.

Why not just a plain and simple yes or no on Statehood!  Who wrote this gobbly-gook?

If the majority votes for “different status,” a second round of votes would be held where Puerto Ricans would choose either statehood or independence-the status quo.  “U.S. territory” would not even be an option!  In other words, the two ballots would be rigged to favor the outcome of statehood, overriding the wishes of Americans and Puerto Ricans who want to maintain the current commonwealth status.

Basically this is a way to court the spanish vote, and add some seats.  Don’t fall for this shell game especially when it will cost you and me big bucks!

Visit my website and help me make the change to return Congress to the people. www.PaulSmithforCongress.org

Who caused the mayor of Sacramento to double-dribble on the Arizona boycott?

It started with an innocent ‘blog posting’ by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson:

I’ve never said much about this, but there was deep personal sadness when I was traded from the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Phoenix Suns in February 1988.

The trouble had no connection with basketball. I was ashamed of my new state for another reason: A year before the trade, Arizona Gov. Evan Mecham rescinded the holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Suddenly, I was expected to play my heart out for audiences proud to denigrate the civil rights victories won by Dr. King.

Arizona needed five years and the loss of an estimated $300 million in tourism dollars – including the removal of the 1993 Super Bowl – before voters finally gave Dr. King his day.

Today memories of those sorry days have returned.

Arizona is back at it, passing a law that allows police to demand ID from anyone who “looks” like an undocumented immigrant.

Don’t get me wrong. Our country must protect its borders. We are a nation of immigrants, and immigration must be managed with thoughtful, fair and productive protocols.

Government agencies must work diligently to respond to immigration issues. But our response must be appropriate and consistent with the fundamentals of our nation.

The Arizona law contradicts the foundation of American justice on multiple levels. Beyond the law’s discretionary bigotry, it stands as a hypocritical application of presumptive guilt, a violation of our essential Constitutional rights. Ultimately, it requires the most color-blind police officer to judge people based on their skin color.

I spoke with Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon on Wednesday afternoon (April 28). He asked me not to call for economic sanctions and boycotts against Arizona.

As mayors, we share a common understanding of negative economic impacts. Damaging the good work of Mayor Gordon and the many honorable people in his city in retribution for the immigration law can become the equivalent of trying to make two wrongs equal one right.

But I strongly feel we must seek a positive resolution to Arizona’s injustice, hopefully with dialogue. I will go to Arizona and meet with leaders there if that will help. And at Sacramento City Hall, I will begin the process of seeking collaboration on this issue with my colleagues at City Hall.

As a resident of Arizona during the time of the struggle to honor Dr. King, I understand how collective pressures can bring our Southwestern neighbors to their collective senses.

I still have many friends in Arizona, and know the state is not a land filled with hatred. But sometimes Arizonans need a reminder of their foolishness.

If we open a dialogue with Arizonians and remind them of the consequences from the Dr. King holiday embarrassment, maybe they will get it.

Then, as quick as a crossover dribble he changed direction, Johnson stated that he had spoken to quickly.

The mayor reversed his course and announced to the media that he would not be calling for a boycott after all; instead he would visit his former professional town and speak directly with the Phoenix mayor in the near future. Mayor Johnson referenced a telephone conversation with the Arizona mayor as the convincing measure for him pulling his boycott request for Sacramento City Council.

The phone call sounds reasonable, but I am not convinced that it was the mayor of Phoenix that forced Johnson from the boycott bucket. And I am convinced that it was ‘one, single phone call’ either. Mayor Johnson probably looked up from his blog keypad and realized that he was facing a one-on-five fast break offense preparing to slam dunk his idea.

Who – in the end - schooled Johnson the most? I am wondering if it was a phone call from his Sacramento teammates that applied the full court press on Johnson’s dribble-drive.

My guess is the Maloof’s; the Sacramento Kings actually blocked KJ’s boycott from behind?

Consider the dilemma for Sacramento’s City Council, the NBA team itself and all interested parties involved in the recently supported ‘land-swap’ to build a new sports and entertainment arena in downtown Sacramento.

If Mayor Johnson’s Arizona boycott was ratified, would the Kings have to foriet every 2010-11 game in Phoenix? And what happens when the Suns visit Arco, would Sacramento fans be encouraged to boycott the game?

While the NBA is enticing investors, land owners and politicians to get a new arena built to save the franchise in California’s Capitol City, the mayor I was preparing to incorporate a boycott of the Phoenix Suns – one of the NBA’s stronger medium sized markets teams.

When I heard Mayor KJ’s describe the phone conversation that lead to the reverse-dribble I wasn’t convinced that it was a man-to-man defensive drill that caused his move from the boycott bucket.

Johnson’s too good, he’s too skilled in the arena. When you cover someone with political star-power as Kevin Johnson you need more than man-to-man. What Mayor Johnson got was the full court press, and it started with Sacramento’s own Joe and Gavin Maloof at the front of the pack.

Boycotting Arizona makes for great political points, but it was an economical air ball according to the King’s owners, the NBA and every dollar invested in an effort to build a new arena for Sacramento.

The Tea Party Movement is vilified and ridiculed in the media as a bunch ignorant white people opposed to anything and everything that Obama supports. The truth though is that the Tea Party Movement is organized with rally’s that draw attention to the problems that arise when the federal government continues to expand its role in the lives of all Americans. For the most part, and I stress most part, Tea Partiers refrain from ad hominem attacks and stick to the key messages that we are taxed too much and do not want to support those that would rather opt for a free ride from the government than work. Most importantly though, Tea Partiers do not resort to threats and vandalism to convey their message.

This is dramatically different from the way those opposed to SB 1070 are organizing. At no point in the year plus that the Tea Party has held its rallies has any of the millions of protesters done anything on the level of drawing a swastika in refried beans on a capitol building. Can you imagine the reaction if a Tea Partier had done anything on this level? It would be all over the news and it would fuel the media’s storyline of ignorant racists, but when the SB 1070 protesters do so, it is but a sub-note in the noble protest that these downtrodden are waging against the racist government that wants them to show proof they are citizens of this country.

I do realize that this is just one example out of the thousands of individuals protesting, but I still contend that nothing on this level was ever done at any of the tea party protests in the past year all over the country. And while I have not been to any of the protests in opposition to SB 1070, I do have the experience of the endless facebook statuses from liberal friends. The facebook messages are hardly peaceful in their nature, calling for people to purposefully not carry identification in protest and tag lines with phrases such as “why is my skin color a crime?” The Tea Partiers may have signs that are controversial, but the flagship groups for the movement do not make claims that are 100 percent false. The SB 1070 protesters are saying things and making claims that anyone who supports this bill is inherently racist, which I find wholly inaccurate…and the media not only lets them get away with it but supports them.

This does not even go into the ludicrous calls for boycotts by the MLB all-star game and conventions that are pulling out of the state. Arizona is not a state full of right-wing radicals; this bill made it through the legislative process just as any other bill would have to and from what I understand the majority of people who are directly affected by the bill (the ones who legally in Arizona) support it. It is the people from the outside such Al Sharpton who want to turn this into something that it is not…an unwarranted racist attack on minorities. The next phase is already starting to take place and the Hollywood stars picking up on it as a trendy issue to get involved in and we Saturday Night Live joining the chorus and George Lopez making comments about it during an NBA playoff game.

I realize this is a divisive issue even within the Republican Party, but what is intolerable is the way that I am vilified as a working white male for not opposing the law and the way the media embraces these tactics, all of which is in stark contrast to the way the Tea Party Movement is portrayed. Sometimes it is almost enough to make you want to give up. I just want the media to scrutinize those that scrutinize the government evenly, is that too much to ask?

President Barack Obama has told Telemudo that “there is no immigration reform coming any time soon. The conditions aren’t ripe for such a measure. We must focus on the energy bill and other pressing issues ahead of the elections.”

Breaking on Telemudo and a select media outlets tonight. It seems like Congress (still) probably doesn’t have the appetite to tackle an immigration reform anytime soon.  Obama said this to reporters who traveled with him aboard Air Force One.

Here is your link:

El Congreso podría “no tener apetito” para abordar pronto una reforma de inmigración, después de un año de debates muy intensos, reconoció el miércoles el presidente Barack Obama.

Obama dijo a los reporteros que viajaban con él en el avión presidencial Air Force One que el Congreso ha trabajado muy duro en el último año con la reforma de salud y quizás no esté listo para abordar de inmediato otro asunto controversial.

El mandatario dijo que hay trabajo por hacer en el tema de la energía, las elecciones legislativas se acercan y él no desea hacer algo “sólo en el nombre de la política”.

Sin embargo, señaló que necesita trabajarse en el tema de la inmigración y quiere plantear soluciones que reciban un apoyo amplio del pueblo estadounidense.

“Hemos pasado por un año muy duro y he trabajado arduamente con el Congreso, de modo que sé que podría no haber en lo inmediato apetito para meterse en otro tema controversial”, dijo el mandatario, durante su regreso a Washington, tras una gira por el centro-occidente del país.

El asunto de la inmigración ha cobrado relevancia en las últimas semanas, después de que la gobernadora de Arizona, Jan Brewer, promulgó una controversial ley, la cual obliga a los agentes locales y estatales a interrogar a la gente sobre su estado migratorio, ante cualquier sospecha de que alguna persona se encuentra ilegalmente en el país. La ley criminaliza además el encontrarse sin documentos en Estados Unidos.

I have no means to affirming this report; all I will say is “let the games begin.” 

A former Fresno resident, driving his commercial truck in Arizona (it happened Monday) was asked for his birth certificate by a local police officer.

He couldn’t produce his documentation, so he was arrested and taken to the local immigration department until his wife could produce his certificate.

It’s a good portion into this news report.

Comments?

California’s state Senate leader on Tuesday urged a possible end to state contracts with Arizona to protest that state’s new immigration law.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said Arizona’s law is a “gross civil-rights violation” because it requires local police to demand proof of legal status if officers suspect a person might be an illegal immigrant.

The Sacramento Democrat sent a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger requesting collaboration to consider legally breaking contracts until the Arizona law is repealed.

Not long after Sacramento’s Steinberg made his announcement, the Mayor of the Capitol added his name to the boycott brigade.

Mayor Kevin Johnson is urging the city of Sacramento to sever economic ties with Arizona over that state’s new immigration law.

In a posting on his blog today, Johnson wrote he applauded moves by California and San Francisco officials to distance themselves from Arizona.

“I fundamentally believe Sacramento should do likewise, severing any economic ties to Arizona in expression of our city’s belief that justice is not an arbitrary weapon wielded according to skin color and appearance,” Johnson wrote.

Arizona’s law requires local police to demand proof of legal status if officers suspect a person is an illegal immigrant.

Johnson said he would begin working with the City Council on the issue. The mayor has e-mailed council members to gather their ideas and gauge their interest in his proposal. Severing ties with Arizona would likely require a resolution passed by the council.

It was unclear today what, if any, economic ties Sacramento has with Arizona.

Johnson wrote that “immigration must be managed with thoughtful, fair and productive protocols,” but that the Arizona law “contradicts the foundation of American justice on multiple levels.”

Johnson wrote that he had “deep personal sadness” when he was traded from the NBA’s Cleveland Cavaliers to the Phoenix Suns in 1988 because Arizona had rescinded a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a year earlier.

“I still have many friends in Arizona and know the state is not a land filled with hatred,” Johnson wrote. “But sometimes Arizonans need a reminder of their foolishness. If we shun them, maybe they will get it.”

As it relates to both politicians, will they now give their monetary gains back to the state of Arizona?

Will the California Pro Tem lead by example?

“Will the Pro Tem lead by example?”

It would seem that Senator Steinberg has gathered nearly $10,000 from Arizona based businesses in contributions. Will he immediately return the money, and what about every other Democrat?

How much money does the Democrat Party have coming (derived) from Arizona?

Here is Senator Steinberg’s contributions of late:

• Allied Waste for $1,900 on February 1, 2010, Phoenix, Arizona.
• Allied Waste for $600 on February 1, 2010, Phoenix, Arizona.
• First Solar Incorporated for $3,000 on February 1, 2010, Tempe, Arizona.
• Apollo Group Incorporated and University of Phoenix for $2,100 on February 1, 2010, Phoenix, Arizona.
• Apollo Group once again for $2,100 on February 1, 2010, Phoenix, Arizona.

And for Kevin Johnson, one wonders if he still has economical ties to the Phoeniz Suns and the NBA in Arizona (I’ve made a phone call to ask). Does his jersey produce royalties for the Arizona team and former point guard?

If so, will the mayor be refusing any future monetary gain from these sources?

BREAKING: And just when you thought the mayor’s office would be leading Sacramento into the boycott waters, he has now changed his position. Mayor Johnson will now visit Arizona for a discussion on the issue.

From the Sacramento Bee this morning.

If you read any articles this year on Global Warming, these are the ones!  Part one.  In part two I will destroy the arguments used to support Man Made Global Warming.

I have been reading almost daily about another scientist that has come out of the closet to say his or her data has flawed in claiming humans are causing global warming.  Let me give you some straight talk on this subject.

In 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that CO2 was a ‘pollutant’ and gave permission to the EPA to regulate it under the Clean Air Act.

In the 1990′s the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) along with President Clinton’s chief environmental scientist, Dr. Robert Watson, in conjunction with the Montreal Protocol, helped to ban Freon.  Next on the list was CO2.

Al Gore has won a Nobel Peace prize, a Grammy and millions of dollars selling the “cure’ for global warming.

As we turn to natural gas as an alternative to oil, Vladimir Putin of Russia, has been busy buying every natural gas company around the world including here in the U.S.!

Al Gore refers to CO2 emissions as an “open sewer” in our atmosphere. 

What has been the temperature of the planet? 

The “estimated” temperature 2000 years ago was about -0.2 degrees C below the norm.  During the Medieval Period of around 1000 AD it was up +0.5 degrees C above the norm.  

In the past 100 year the temperature has varied as follows-0.6 C below norm and +0.5 C above the norm. 

In the past 30 years, with the onset of the use of satellites the temperature has varied as low as -.0.4 C below norm to as high as +0.6 C.  The Thames River in England last froze in 1814. 

Mt. Pinatubo

Temperature fluctuations since 1979 can be traced to El Nino, La Nina and two volcanic eruptions.  El Chichon erupted in Mexico in 1979.  Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.  El Nino pushes warmer water towards North and South America.  La Nina does the reverse. 

Mt. Pinatubo sent millions of tons of sulfur into the atmosphere.  It was turned into a sulfuric acid aerosol which reflected just enough sunlight to keep from heating up the surface of the oceans just a skosh.  Any temperature chart will confirm this from 1992-1995 as the global temperatures dropped below the norm. 

Keep in mind when scientist say we are now the hottest we have ever been, we have no way to know  how warm it was in the Medieval Period.  Convenient since no one can say for sure. 

Tree rings have been used as the bases to measure Global Warming in the Medieval Period.  If that was the case, and our planet was heating up, trees in the last 50 years would show similar data.  But they don’t.  This supports the theory that it was hotter back in 1000 AD and not caused by man! 

Just because scientist say something should happen, doesn’t necessarily mean it does.  Case in point.  When I was researching Nuclear Energy for my many articles on Nuclear Waste, I discovered that those that lived through the initial blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have lived longer than their counter parts in the surrounding un-affected areas. 

What’s an Urban Heat Island? 

Scientist rely on thermometers.  As the world has industrialized, more buildings have been constructed.  Buildings heat the immediate air around them.  Conversely vegetation naturally cools the air.  But we measure the temperature where it’s convenient.  Outside the door.  If we were to go outside the city and take reading we would find the temperature lower by degrees.  The good news is that cities only occupy 1% of all the land area in the world.  Bad news is we get most of our readings from cities.  We could be distorting the actual temperature by 50%! 

Can you tell me one scientist that can predict the weather more than 7-10 days out?  But the Global Warming theorists say with 100% certainty that we will heat the planet up within the next 100 to the point of extinction. 

The IPCC assumes the global cloud coverage always remains the same in their computer models.  I can tell you with certainty when a cloud hovers overhead, it gets cooler.  To think that clouds coverage is always constant is ridiculous and any data that uses cloud coverage as a constant is suspect.  With the recent eruption of the volcano in Iceland, you can bet it will get cooler in the ash path for several years. 

Further distorting the temperature is how funding is doled out for research.  Grants are handed out to researchers in search of man made reasons to confirm Global Warming .  And they find it, get another grant and so on.  Very few grants are handed out, or their works published from those that study natural phenomena. 

Northeast Passage 

In 2007 the Northeast Passage opened up.  Headlines made it sound as if the end of the world was coming.  In reality the Northeast Passage was clear from 1940 to 1942!  Where was the panic and sensationalism then? 

Global temperatures have not risen in the past seven years.  Arctic sea ice has recovered in 2009 from the meltdown from 2007.  But still we hear that the ice is going to disappear. 

Sound the Battle Cry! 

NASA Scientist Dr. James Hansen has along with Al Gore has turned themselves into the town criers.   Here are some of his quotes. “If we don’t get our emissions under control we are going to destroy creation.”  “Fossil fuel companies know what the story is.  I think they’re guilty of crimes against humanity and nature”  And… his famous quite that basically confirmed he was of his rocker: “If we cannot stop the building of more coal fired power plants, those coal trains will be a death train-no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to the crematoria loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.”  Oops!  The holocaust folks had a field day with that one! 

But eliminate coal from the world and we doom every third world country.  Coal is a cheap way to produce electricity.  Without the ability to store and freeze food, we starve out millions of people and/or cause them to become sick with food borne illnesses.  No one talks about the innocent lives that will be lost should the IPCC have its way. 

Poverty is a real threat today.  Global Warming is still theoretical.  Answer me this.  What Mother in a third world country will sacrifice their baby knowing if they allow a coal fired plant to be built, it may cause global warming thirty years from now.  I will take my chances, how about you? 

Al Gorisims. 

“I want to testify today about what I believe is a planetary emergency- a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth.” 

“After all, we have taken on problems of this scope before.  When England and then America and out allies rose to meet the threat of global Fascism, together we won two wars simultaneously in Europe and the Pacific.” 

“You know, 15 percent of people believe the moon landing was staged on some movie lot and a somewhat smaller number believe the Earth is flat.  They get together on Saturday night and party with the global warming deniers.” 

In the past six months we now have scientists coming out of the woodwork now admitting their data was flawed, wrong and or intentional concocted to fit the global warming theory.  Data was ignored that went counter to the argument.  In the Antarctic, Russian scientists have already admitted they forged data so they could get more funding from their government!  Al Gore was been silent recently and stands to lose millions if indeed the world stops buying into his theories and his products. 

So let’s recap. 

Global Warming has been likened to the holocaust, Fascism, flat earthers, destruction of ice caps, etc…  This makes for a great headline.  The truth is,  the methods to measure global warming are suspect at best.  Tree rings, placement of thermometers, false data, cloud cover and so on.  Those wanting to predict the destruction of man, ignore volcanoes and the results of sunlight being reflected back to space.  As more spurious research data is uncovered, you would think the warming community would admit their finding might be flawed.  But instead they have said the false data doesn’t affect their models.  C’mon! 

In part two, I am going to buzz-saw through all the current theories and tell the truth the Global Scientists and politicians don’t want you to hear!  I will cite direct cases where false data was used.  The cost to our economy and the loss of jobs has been staggering!  While I agree we need to use our resources wisely, making policy decisions based on Global Warming Science is flawed and dangerous to our economy and our country. 

Had enough? 

Visit my website and help me make the change to return Congress to the people. www.PaulSmithforCongress.org

The Arizona immigration law is weak and it will be struck down in the court of law.

If we really desire to delete the blemish of illegal immigration upon the script of America’s future, we must control our borders first – before we attempt anything else.

Every country must control its borders. It is what defines a country; it separates you from the guy who lives next door. For any absolute solution to be birthed surrounding illegal immigration, America must first – and foremost – secure her borders.

This is a federal government responsibility – alone.

There has been a huge shift in California (Western States) attitudes toward “illegal immigrants” since 1994. The reasons: we have active, younger voters who hold a much different ideology of America’s melting pot (California) than the older demographics, and we have a much larger number of active Latino voters in the mix.

Passing piece-meal laws that attempt to put the ‘toothpaste back into the tube’ are very messy – and they don’t work. Granted, Arizona may be successful in shaming the AWOL federal government’s lack of immigration responsibility but this radical (and it is a radical move) state law does not end illegal immigration for the country, or Arizona.

Eventually this law will be tossed aside by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – if it keeps its life through the US Federal Courts system.

From my limited legal mind, research and historical perspective, there are three reasons why I believe this Arizona law violates sound application of Constitutional justice, process and overall jurisprudence.

First, states cannot make immigration laws.

This is the sole responsibility of the federal government (Articles of Constitution, Section 8). States don’t have borders, they have state lines. The border is the responsibility of the federal government. The reason is international diplomacy; these humans are citizens of another country and only our federal government can create laws that impact international neighbors.

Secondly, it violates the 4th Amendment.

This law moves us from “reasonable cause” to “reasonable suspicions.” Don’t get caught up in nativism here, forget about the person who is here illegally and focus instead upon the legal Latino-American citizen. When they are forced to produce papers regarding their citizenship their rights are violated with an illegal search and seizure. (The driver has been seized, the car has been seized – have the other passengers been seized for speeding?)

Consider the narrative of the Minuteman Project Founder, Jim Gilchrist in the Sacramento Bee.

Jim Gilchrist, Southern California-based president of the self-styled border-patrol Minuteman Project, called Arizona’s law “the best thing that’s happened in years in terms of stopping illegal immigration.”

He said he doesn’t favor police asking for documents without a reason for stopping someone, such as a suspected crime or a car light that doesn’t work.

“Test the legislation,” he said, and if profiling is a problem, then the law should be rewritten so it’s “all inclusive” and requires officers to ask everyone they stop for proof of legal status. “They have the right to challenge even me,” Gilchrist said, “although I look American and sound American.”

Gilchrist’s comment is egregious, “although I look American and sound American.” So tell me, what does an American look like, and how does an American sound?

And Gilchrist’s comment, “They have the right to challenge even me.”

You’re sitting in the passenger’s seat of a car that is pulled over for speeding in Arizona. The AHP (Arizona Highway Patrol) asks for the driver’s “driver’s license” and registration of the vehicle. Sure, this is immediate proof of the driver’s status and totally Constitutional.

What about the other passenger(s) in the car? With Arizona’s law ALL passengers would be asked to prove their citizenship, right? Or just those who “look” to be Latino?

Is Jim Gilchrist suggesting that EVERYONE is a car must prove citizenship now? If you’re the passenger of a car pulled over for speeding you have not committed a crime or violation, and to be asked to provide documentation is a violation of your 4th Amendment rights.

Lastly, illegal immigration is not a state crime.

The new law imposes criminal penalties for conduct – being in the state illegally – this is not a federal crime; being found to be in the country without proper documentation isn’t categorized as a criminal offense. It is a violation of immigration law and grounds for deportation. (There is no Federal Court precedent that undocumented in a state, within the country, is a criminal offense.)

So you may say, “Much ado about nothing” – except for the fact that these Republican efforts now afford President Barack Obama, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer and California Attorney General Jerry Brown a polarizing immigration debate where big majorities have been polled showing favor toward a path to legalization as they reject our constant banging of pots and pans on this issue.

Just when we were focused on Obamacare, deficit spending, the economy and an ideology of socialistic intent, we are drug back into a wedge issue that has Democrats unified and Republicans stupidified.

Congratulations Republicans!