History is replete with the social upheaval of scientific revolution. In this repeating saga of humanity, there are always two camps: the established ‘consensus’ and the heretical new thinkers.

The most infamous of these upheavals was the debate between the terra-centric (flat earth types) and heliocentric camps of the renaissance. The consensus was held by the Catholic Church who had determined (with loose and unfounded logic) that the Earth was the center of the universe – and they it’s smartest and most wise (of course)

The heretics were those watching and measuring reality: Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Capernicus and Galileo Galilei – some of humanity’s most brilliant and open minded scientists. As these people began to observe the heavens and make precise measurements night after night, they began to unravel the mysteries of the night sky. They discovered planets, theorized about them orbiting a large mass, and finally discovered the Earth actually revolved around the Sun.

For these amazing achievements these people were prosecuted by the naysayers of the Church:

Nicolaus Copernicus (German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; Italian: Nicolò Copernico; Polish: Miko?aj Kopernik (help·info); in his youth, Niclas Koppernigk;^[1] 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance astronomer and the first person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology which displaced the Earth from the center of the universe.^[2]

Copernicus’ epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), published just before his death in 1543, is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the scientific revolution. His heliocentric model, with the Sun at the center of the universe, demonstrated that the observed motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting Earth at rest in the center of the universe. His work stimulated further scientific investigations, becoming a landmark in the history of science that is often referred to as the Copernican Revolution.

…

By 1616 the attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade the Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus’ ideas. In the end, a decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were “false” and “altogether contrary to Holy Scripture”, and suspending Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected. Acting on instructions from the Pope before the decree was issued, Cardinal Bellarmine informed Galileo that it was forthcoming, that the ideas it condemned could not be “defended or held”, and ordered him to abandon them. Galileo promised to obey. Bellarmine’s instruction did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentrism as a mathematical fiction but was dangerously ambiguous as to whether he could treat it as a physical possibility.^[53] For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy.

…

The sentence of the Inquisition was delivered on June 22. It was in three essential parts:

• Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.^[59]
• He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.^[60] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
• His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.^[61]

I snipped these passages from the Wikipedia pages on Capernicus and Galileo. It is a disgusting and disturbing part of humanity’s history. These people looked at the world in open and objective ways and saw what was there, transpiring right in front of them. Yet the ‘consensus’ crowd was so afraid of the real facts they censored the real results and ruined the careers of these ‘deniers’ of doctrine.

Fast forward to today and you see the Church of Al Gore/IPCC replaying history. But this time they do not have the reigns of law, nor the ability to shut down and censor dissent so coldly and easily.

For a while they were able to abuse the scientific review process and stamp out contrary studies, but that could not hold and someone with a more refined conscience and a true sense of the scientific method let leak the emails that proved the conspiracy to shut out the heretics of AGW. The milder inquisition in hiding was exposed. Though some still hold out for a more violent response:

We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies.  Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay.  Let’s let their houses burn.  Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands.  Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.

This person needs help.

As with the Heliocentric Revolution, it takes time to finally wash away the chains of consensus and once again walk in the light of discovery. But with so many more scientists today, much more capable tools and global data banks this round of cleansing won’t take centuries.

The following story at WUWT is a harbinger of new scientific enlightenment, and recalls one of the last scientific revolutions to sweep Mother Earth:

Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark’s latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”. After years of effort Svensmark shows how the variable frequency of stellar explosions not far from our planet has ruled over the changing fortunes of living things throughout the past half billion years.

…

By taking me back to when I reported the victory of the pioneers of plate tectonics in their battle against the most eminent geophysicists of the day, it makes me feel 40 years younger. Shredding the textbooks, Tuzo Wilson, Dan McKenzie and Jason Morgan merrily explained earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain-building, and even the varying depth of the ocean, simply by the drift of fragments of the lithosphere in various directions around the globe.

The consensus of a rigid solid crust was blown away – again by a few out-of-the-consensus-box thinkers who pulled together data into a new picture of the world around us. The story Svenmark shows is how this Earth interacts with the galaxy around us. And how that galaxy can cause conditions that increase clouds, and thus decrease global temps as we are shielded from the Sun’s life giving energy. It shows how a cool Earth with lowered sea levels loses diversity and threatens life, while a warmer Earth with higher seal levels allows diversity and evolution to explode.

It also shows how CO2 is not a driver of temperature, but a result of higher temps and more water (sort of a “duh” moment in my opinion).

There have been many other studies out recently, showing how polar ice extent today is not much different from the 1930-1940 period (which is consistent with RAW temperature records which show a similar global temp as today). Another shows how satellites have disprove the climate models, and we all know how temperatures have not increased with CO2 for going on two decades (on average).

The theory of AGW is busted and dead. Now it is just a matter of time for the media to grow up and report on it, and the politicians to disconnect themselves from the mess. And it is a mess. You would think the CRU emails would have sent a shudder through all respectable and honorable men and women of science. But the group-think surrounding CO2 is so engrained it has taken even grosser events to begin to rattle the zealots. As with the Church and Galileo, there have been outright forgeries and fakes used to try and hide the reality.

But the truth of reality will break through the fiction of zealotry. At least we can say we are getting better at getting through these disturbing moments of lax judgement.

Since this seems to be a highly debated hot topic issue I decided to provide some history and let the debate be sparked. Due to the legal implications of the definitions of the types of citizens we will be focusing only on the Constitution, US law and SCOTUS cases. We will not be relying on written opinions from non-justices.

The Constitution mentions natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and citizens.

* Natural born citizens are recognized as “…any child that is born in the United States or one of its territories…” Children born on US soil to diplomats and other recognized foreign government officials will not receive US citizenship. “If you were born in the U.S., your U.S. citizenship will last your entire life unless you make an affirmative action to give it up, like filing an oath.” Title 8 of the US Code lists the circumstances where a person is considered a natural born citizen.

* Naturalized citizens are

A naturalized citizen is a person who was born an alien, but has lawfully become a citizen of the United States under the U.S. Constitution and laws.

A naturalized citizen has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except is not eligible as president or vice-president of the United States.

* Citizen is defined as

• individuals born in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Swain’s Island;

• foreign-born children, under age 18, residing in the U.S. with their birth or adoptive parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization; and

• individuals granted citizenship status by Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).

Under the Constitution natural born citizens and naturalized citizens are US citizens. There are not three types of citizenship, there are two with US citizen being an umbrella category.

Now, on to a review of the Supreme Court cases (details can be found here) mentioning citizenship.

1. US v. Villato, 2 U.S. 370 (1797) –  The Court recognizes natural born and naturalized citizens. Natural born is used in the context of general citizenship

2. Dred Scot v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 393 (1856) – During the Slaughter-House Cases the Court acknowledged (albeit not officially) that this case was overruled  by the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

3. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874) – The Court “equates ‘native-born’ with ‘natural born’ citizen, in the general citizenship context, referencing Article II’s use of the term ‘natural born.’ It notes varying authority as to whether a person born in the US to noncitizen parents may be a ‘natural born citizen’ – but does not address that issue. What is clear, however, is that the Court recognizes two – and only two – types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized.

4. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) – The Court states that there are “…two sources only…” of citizenship – birth and naturalization.

5. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) – The Court “equates a ‘born US citizen’ with a ‘natural born American citizen,’ – many times throughout the opinion, finding ultimately that a child born in the US – even if to Chinese subjects – is a US citizen.  Given the context of the full opinion, and the repeated references to the two types of citizenship – natural born and naturalized – the conclusion that Wong Kim Ark was, per the court, a ‘natural born’ US citizen is inescapable.”

6. Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9 (1913) – The Court said:  “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Once again the Court uses the term “native” interchangeably with “natural.”

7. Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920) – The Court “equates a ‘born US citizen’ with a ‘natural born American citizen,’ and notes that it is undisputed, pursuant to Wong Kim Ark, that a child born in the US – even if to Chinese subjects – is a natural born citizen.”

8. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) – The Court “equates a ‘born US citizen’ with ‘native born’ and ‘natural born’ citizenship.”

9. Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944) –  The Court recognizes natural born and naturalized citizens. Natural born is used in the context of general citizenship.

10. Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (1949) –  The Court recognizes natural born and naturalized citizens. Natural born is used in the context of general citizenship.

11. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) – The Court “equates a ‘native born’ citizen with a “natural born” citizen under Article II – and, again, recognizes only two types of citizenship: natural/native-born, and naturalized.”

12. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) – The Court ‘equates a “native born’ or ‘born’ citizen with ‘natural born’ citizen status. It is worth noting, however, that the Supreme Court did create a third ‘type’ citizenship – applicable to children born abroad to US citizen parents and that the Supreme Court held that such citizenship was not “constitutional citizenship” protected by the 14th Amendment.”

Emphasis mine. The Supreme Court does not define “native born” and “natural born” differently. Since they set the legal precedence for interpreting the law, then they are interchangeable. Also, means politicians such as Rubio can be President or Vice President in this great country!

Let the debate begin!!

DJStrata

Immigration!

Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.

…

The legislation would have little chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, but it would allow Democrats to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July.

Only the Democrats are crafty enough to target a shrinking population which is not able to vote anyway:

The number of Mexican migrants to the United States dropped significantly while the number of those returning home increased, bringing net migration from Mexico to a statistical standstill, according to a report published Monday.

The shift over the last several years marks a significant change after four decades of historic immigration from Mexico, according to the report by the Pew Hispanic Center.

So, the Senate Dems (who can’t do their primary job and pass a federal budget to save their lives) have decided to put on a completely useless and futile media show. Which is par for the course.

What an election strategy: Save Obamacare, raise taxes, raise the price of energy and try and bring back the illegal immigrants leaving the country.

Pure genius

So, where’s AJStrata been?  Really busy is the short answer. Our little company has been growing since we are on a major program in need of our skill set, so my priorities have been outside politics and on real life.

But in addition, the political landscape is barren and boring. Every day we see another example of government corruption (see here for the woman stealing money to fund her horse farm). From the Vegas bash by a manager  at GSA (and GSA Pacific Island hopping) to the Secret Service debacle with hookers, Americans are well aware the cancer in this country is government run amok.

So when we face an election where we have to choose between to variants of intrusive and wasteful government, the nation goes back to work and life – awaiting their time to chime in.

I seriously doubt Obama will be re-elected. The only way it will happen is if We The People decide gridlock and 4 years of investigation and discussion by Congress on the role of government is the right answer at this point in time. It may be the right answer.  We should be scrubbing the government for corruption, ineptitude and waste. That will take years to review and kill as necessary.

And let Obama be the who has to defend the liberal madness. It should be hilarious.

Update: Anyway, to finish the thought since I had to go to lunch – following the bland political debate that is now occurring I have to admit to a lack of anything of interest to post. It’s so, ugly and going nowhere.

Rinse and repeat

The Democrats were basking in the glow of a really bad GOP primary season. They had successfully turned GOP candidate misfires into the image of the bad ‘ol GOP of yester-year (preachy, prudish and pompous). There was the rich against the poor – with Romney being the near-perfect stereotype of the rich man who won his treasure on the backs of Main Street workers.

And there was the war on women, which erupted after the debate on restrictions for public payment of abortions and birth control, etc.

Then Hillary Rosen lead the charge against Ann Romney in one of those apparent coordinated media attacks you see from political pundits. This was because Ann Romney was deemed to be the biggest threat to the Obama campaign. A threat I failed to see until last week. Little did I know!

Rosen went full-on-dumb snark when she claimed “Ann hasn’t worked a day in her life”. The typical left wing feminist organizations followed suit – right over the electoral cliff.

Rosen’s sin was she attacked the backbone of America – The Family. If there is anything more powerfully toxic to a politician it is attacking the ‘home’ of Americans. We can disagree on solutions to pressing problems all day long, but no one disses the family. And the heart of all families is the mother – who sacrifices so much for her family. Every decent husband, and all the children know, moms give up a lot to do the hardest job in America.

Raising good and successful children.

Who doesn’t have a memory of Mom coming to your aid when you were hurt, or knowing when to spoil you with a reward and punish you when you went astray. Who doesn’t recall being sick and turning to Mom, or being heart broken and turning to Mom, or being proud for making a big achievement and turning to Mom …

Husbands know, Mom is first on everyone’s mind.

The point is, the luckiest amongst us have a Mom and Dad in our lives a lot, as positive influences (as opposed to people who fail at being Mom and Dad – sometimes horrifically). And those who don’t have this fortune muddle through wishing they did.

What Rosen and the left did (primarily the twisted feminist far left) is reopen the real battle lines in America. The war of the family against a society run amok. A society run amok through the power of government busy bodies looking to demonstrate their superior intellect and morals (which always begs the question, what kind of superior being settles for a government job). [BTW, I have 100% respect for all those ‘normal’ people working for the government without arrogance and disdain for all those outside government].

The family is under attack from the tag team of big business and big government. And it is these forces of oppression We The People want reigned in. So when Rosen and the far left snarked their true disregard for the family, they provided a clear and uncomplicated target for Main Street’s frustration. They provided Americans with something to rally behind as wrong, evil and needing to be eliminated from mature thought. There is no need to overthink this, Rosen and the feminists have given everyone and easy place to vent all their frustrations.

Over at Bookworm Room the essence of this misstep was made crystal clear. The selfish feminists are now in full battle with selfless mothers. This line especially hit home:

This is not just a war of tired old feminists who are trying to justify the fact that most of them paid illegal, undereducated women, many of whom speak little or no English, to raise their children.

This actually does appear to be the crux of the matter. In between the Ann Romney types (wealthy enough to stay home) and the liberal elite who are so self absorbed they outsource their kids to surrogates, live the rest of America. Many of whom hire help or utilize day care, but who would prefer more time home with the kids. They would love to be in Ann Romney’s shoes.

Recall that the left see children as burdens, not the treasure they are. For evolution-believing types they are ignorant of the power of parenting in regards to biological success. Feminists and liberals talk about the conception of life as a parasite. Got that? A blood sucking parasite. Not a rare gift – a once for all time spark. A parasite that can be destroyed at a whim, and paid for by taxpayers.

I have a biology degree and I know for a fact the individual of any life form is unique. There never will be another like it ever again, and they are the one only to exist in all of history. To see this rare event as a parasite, or some burden that takes from expressing one’s inner whatever, is sad. Pathetically sad. It is where Main Street parts with the elites and rightfully looks down on the wasted existence of said hollow elites.

The happiest families have balance. Dedicated parents who share the time and responsibility with the kids. Whose free time is dedicated to the kids. In this modern world, Moms working paid jobs are not much different from stay at home moms, and they all get along well in every community in the country. These are children-first types – not the Rosen-nuts. They are repelled by Rosen’s callousness.

Bookworm makes one more point, which to me is just an offshoot or aberration of the guilt-avoidance mentioned above:

Part of the socialist experiment was that children would be raised, not within family units, but as part of the cooperative.  Only in that way could the kibbutz [socialists] defeat unhealthy, selfish individualism and assure a new generation of people dedicated to the movement.

Yes, to eliminate individualism would require breaking the bond between parents and children. Then children can be programmed to do the state’s bidding. Nazis and others discovered this issue decades ago. Cults employ this strategy. But ironically, it is those who are selfish with their own lives who fall for this myth. You cannot take the parent out of humanity – it is our long parenting period that made us who we are, and why our children imprint on their parents and stay with them for decades. Social engineering cannot win against genetics.

I feel the left is riddled with insecurity. They are intimidated by the rich, the powerful (see our military), the successful (another form of rich), and the happy. They thrive on sustaining the moment they revolted from parental oppression (be it religion, sexual orientation, taste in clothes, whatever). Why they even consider having or raising kids is beyond me. Maybe it is more of that lashing out and trying to prove they were right when they went full anarchist to leave the nest.

But I do know this. The tolerance for individual choice ends at the individual making the choice. The minute that choice is mandated on others, or others are oppressed (for what else is snarkasm but a way to oppress diversity) then the line is crossed and the spines go up. As bookworm noted, once the selfless parental instincts kick in – so does the mother lion protecting her cub instinct. Or the family’s instinct to protect its matriarch.

The minute Rosen and the left waged their war on mothers (which this was), they were doomed.

No one disses the mom of the house. No one. Being the husband I can tell you for a fact the kids and I would never let our tolerance for diversity extend that far. Them fighting words.

Tone deaf political consultants can be a real hoot sometimes. Drudge has this up this morning:

'SHE HAS NEVER WORKED A DAY IN HER LIFE'

But everyone’s knee-jerk response thought is to recall that this person never worked a day in his life either (at a real job before being elected Prez):

It impossible not to make the connection. Difference is, Anne Romney is not running for President. If she were it would be a very painful liability. We don’t need a repeat of the Incompetent-In-Chief

Yes, this the Trayvon Martin killing is a complex and tragic case. As I predicted when first posting on this matter, it was clear charges were coming since George Zimmerman had plenty of off-ramps to avoid the confrontation and the end result. This is the right path to take. This will shut down the nonsense from far right and far right, and allow the rules of evidence and trial to work the proper conclusion.

I was very surprised the charge was 2nd degree murder (I was expecting a lesser charge) but that only confirms my original suspicion that the evidence was much clearer than many suspected it was.

Now we follow the process for justice, and as the prosecutor said – Trayvon Martin is the victim here, not Zimmerman.

Update: This is clearly the form of 2nd Degree Murder being used in the charge:

Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.

As I have said many times, Zimmerman had not authority or right to follow and confront Martin while armed. This was not a race crime, but a crime of someone playing vigilante and ignoring warnings by police to avoid a situation. And that is a ‘depraved mind’ in my book.

Update 2: Watching the National Action Network with Al Sharpton and Attorney Crump I have to applaud their statements. They were measured, humbled and focused on bringing American justice for an American child. As Crump noted, it really is for all the young people we needed to take the time to assess the evidence and do what is right. And as Sharpton said, this is not a celebration, simply one successful step in the right direction. Well done folks. And well done for all those calling for calm and allowing the process to run.

Update 3: I expected a little more discussion from Hot Air on this, but their one post on this is here.

Maybe there is hope for this nation and all its people. God’s Speed Trayvon

Tags: Arrested, Trayvon Martin

As I noted over the weekend, kudos to NBC for firing a producer who lied through omission. The person was fired for snipping out audio that totally changed the story line. A quote was transformed from a response to question on the race of somebody seen to the person apparently being obsessed with blacks. It was a propaganda trick that probably had Joseph Goebbels smiling from Hell.

What this incident showed was how the omission of KNOWN information could twist the facts to the point of being in opposition to reality and the truth. And of course, every kid knows deliberately hiding of the truth is called lying.

So when this post went up on WUWT I felt the importance of it had been buried in techno-babble (something I speak with ease).

Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy!

Posted on April 7, 2012 by Willis Eschenbach

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Before we get to the details, let me set the stage for those less familiar with the science of paleoclimate. It is the estimation of ancient climate conditions through ‘proxies’ – items whose quantity change with temperature, usually due to chemical or biological responses to warm and cold seasonal temperatures. But too often these responses are muddied by other factors (e.g., amount of direct sunlight, annual precipitation levels, food  quality/quantity, etc). The problem with all these proxies is their uncertainty is huge. Processes we see today may not be exactly the same in the past. In fact for biological proxies, the odds are they are not the same given the march of evolution, etc. So take all the following data with large amounts of salt, and remember to look at the data point spreads – which are a clear indication of the ‘precision’ of the data. Lots of data can generate a trend, but not precision in many cases.

The study in question came out recently to boost the IPCC, CRU and EPA theories that CO2 drives global temperatures. The study’s case is incredibly weak, in that you cannot tell whether CO2 precedes or lags temperature increases. All the data shows is atmospheric CO2 content rises with temperature, as seen coming out of the last major Ice Age 15,000 – 9,000 years ago [click to enlarge]:

The black dots are the CO2 proxies, the green dots the temperature proxies. All anyone can claim is they both increased at the end of the last ice age. But basic chemistry can address that (e.g., when ocean and fresh water bodies warm they release more CO2 into the air – and since they represent 75% of the Earth’s surface this alone could account for the CO2 rise as temperatures rose).

One thing I notices is we have THOUSANDS of years to see the temperature increase from Ice Age to Holocene “normal”, not decades as the IPCC claims.  It took 5,000+ years to go from -1° C to +1.5° C.

That’s 2,000 yrs/degree C! Apparently, if you assume the conclusions are right (which I don’t), we have some time to work this out.

What Willis Eschenbach noticed was something else – hidden in plain site. If you look past the transition from Ice Age to Holocene, you find something missing. First off, look at the green cloud and notice how after the warming ended we have been in a downward cooling trend. That may surprise a lot of people to realize we are now cooler than right after the end of the last Ice Age. But then also realize that CO2 has been increasing all thsi time, as Willis Eschenbach noted:

Dang, I didn’t expect that rise in CO2 that started about 6,000 BC. I do love climate science, it always surprises me … but the big surprise was not what the ice core records showed. It was what the Shakun2012 authors didn’t show.

I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …

I have updated Willi’s chart to show notional trend lines in temperature (yellow) and CO2 (black) (Click to enlarge).

(BTW, these are eye-balled trend lines since the CO2 data is missing). As can be seen, CO2 has been rising for 7,000+ years and temperatures have been falling for 10,000 or so years. This study proves that CO2 levels are decoupled from global temperature with more confidence than any other claim the authors made.

Stick a fork in the IPCC – it’s done.

In what should be a normal occurrence when any news organization evidence of misinformation in a story (see RaThergAte), we are now living in a day and age when we find the rooting out of liars a rare and special event. With so much bias and filtered news out there (filtered to hide the full story, or all sides of the debate, or miss the fact pronouncements of ‘truth’ are standing on foundations of massive scientific uncertainty, etc – all lies of omission) it truly is a spectacle to behold when a fraud is canned in today’s news business:

NBC News has fired a producer who was involved in the production of a misleading segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.

…

The segment in question was shown on the “Today” show on March 27. It included audio of Mr. Zimmerman saying, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

…

This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Then the dispatcher asked, “O.K., and this guy — is he white, black or Hispanic?” Only then did Mr. Zimmerman say, “He looks black.”

If there is positive evidence for George Zimmerman in any this mess it is this segment of the 9-11 tapes. He does not appear (as of yet) to even know if Trayvon is black or not. The ‘looks’ caveat in his off-the-cuff response indicates uncertainty. Hit does not sound or appear to be laced with anger (yet – that does come later in the call when he starts to chase Trayvon down).

I applaud NBC for its quick and decisive action. One wonders, then, how buffoons like this keep getting paid millions of dollars to spout similar misinformation:

The news media has a long road back to ‘respectable’.

Tags: Faked Audio, George Zimmerman, NBC, Trayvon Martin

Sorry again for the lack of posting. I am simply stunned with how much work is slamming me at the moment on multiple fronts.  Not to mention we are now in the doldrums of the political season, so my interest in politics is at a true low.

Santorum cannot stop Romney – and I am not sure that bothers me at all. Santorum had enough missteps in terms of promoting a intrusive conservative government that he pretty much lost the 2010 Libertarian insurgent voters. I have accepted Romney as the GOP candidate – yawn.

One thing I hope is clear after this year is how useless Ron Paul is to the Libertarian cause. All he does is siphon off enough conservative votes to make sure the establishment candidate gets selected. It is also clear he has the backing of the GOP Political Industrial Complex to play this role of divider. He has been covering Romney’s flank the entire time – not once pointing out his fallacies. Ron Paul is a barrier to Libertarians – that much is now crystal clear. Hopefully we move beyond the quirky old uncle now and get serious.

Obama is almost a dead-pol walking. He has screwed up so many ways its impossible to list them all in a quick post. On the International front he has been the best thing for the Islamo Fascists taking over in key countries. Part of me is glad to see strong men like Qadaffi gone, but what we are getting in place of these Arab leaders is not stability but anarchy. This will have repercussions for a long time.

Obama’s economic disasters are now legend. In fact, the one thing hurting Romney is how Obama has decimated all belief in government as capable to solving any problem – without making things worse. One look at the Shovel Ready jobs of the defunct ‘stimulus’ package and it is clear how you can really make things a hell of a lot worse by applying foolish and naive socialist, progressive policies. The result was not just continued unemployment, but a pile of debt it I will not see undone in my life time, nor my kids.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi have so poisoned the image of government intervention Romney is seen as just another variant on the two-faced DC pol. It does not help that he is robotic (like Obama), too quick with the slick catch phrase (like Obama) and someone whose resume is chock full of big-government or big-business (the two banes of Main Street, USA). When Romney speaks I feel and hear nothing – its like he’s on a Charlie Brown episode speaking adult gibberish (wah, wah, wah, wah,.. wah-wah).

But I have been following the comments from our die-hard and patient readers here (thanks folks, no better sign of support than sticking through this dry spell) and maybe there is a chance for Romney to ignite some energy in his base.

McCain did this with his pick of Sarah Palin, which actually gave him a fighting chance (that he still muffed). I agree a Paul Ryan or Marcus Rubio type would be best. It has to be a Libertarian, tear-down-this-bloated-government type. The only way for Romney to tap into some of that 2010 insurgent vote is to get a Tea Party lieutenant.

The problem for Romney without this kind of fire-brand ally is the country may feel fine with divided and paralyzed government – especially if the US Supreme Court knocks down Obamacare. Divided government would impose a 4 year “Stop Screwing Up!” moratorium on DC as the Dem veto pen fights the GOP Congress. It would force a time for discussion and decision going into 2016.

Romney needs a personality implant and a jolt of Tea Party Libertarian. If he is going to sketch a new path forward, he needs to move away from Big Government and Big Business. Something I am not sure he is able to do, sadly. But if he does – then I and many others might find a reason to get interested again.

Maybe..