Letter from Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC) on Global Warming

The letter below dated December 17, 2009 is from Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC) responding to my email to him expressing concerns on global warming fraudulent data, and impending legislation to control CO2 based largely on that fraudulent data.


Dear Mr. Lang:



Thank you for contacting me regarding global warming. I appreciate knowing your thoughts and views.



I believe the earth has warmed a bit over the past century, as have other planets in our solar system, and most people agree. However, there is substantial disagreement regarding the extent of this warming, whether it's caused by human activity or simply nature taking its course, and what solutions, if any, should be implemented. The bottom line is that the scientific community does not speak with one voice on this issue.



I believe it is important for Congress to make policy that is economically responsible, scientifically valid and promotes the general welfare of present and future generations of Americans. We should not enact legislation that will harm Americans based on untested theories and disputed scientific conclusions.



I believe the federal government is addressing issues surrounding possible global climate change through extensive research and monitoring efforts. Our universities and other researchers are also working to learn more about the potential for drastic global warming. At this time, I do not believe the government needs to create additional programs, nor should it mandate emissions reductions. I look forward to further hearings and discussions related to climate change, and I will keep your concerns and thoughts in mind.



Again, thank you for contacting me on this issue. As you may know, your thoughts and concerns are extremely important to me. If my office can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact my office.


Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress


Congressman Jones expresses several interesting opinions that have little or no basis is scientific fact.

1. He says he "believes that the earth is warming." Not that he has facts to prove his beliefs, but that he has 'faith' the earth is warming. That is the problem with global warmist, they 'believe' the temperatures of the earth have increased, but have not facts to back up their belief. In light of the faked data disclosed by the Climatgate emails, the factual basis for global warming is at best less compelling than it was before we learned of the scientist's lies.
2. Congressman Jones also says "as have other planets in out solar system." There is absolutely no data showing that other plants in our solar system have warmed. One could imply from his comment that human activity on earth is to blame for the other planets warming, which is absurd.
3. He also says "that most people agree [that the earth is warming]." That statement is completely false. As we know from Climategate, the scientist responsible for perpetrating the fraud of global warming, also conspired to keep opponents from publishing in scientific journals. In addition, these scientists refused to share their raw data and models with other scientist so that the data, models, and results could be independently verified. Without independent verification, a scientific thesis cannot be verified, and can never become fact. That's why those like Congressman Jones must 'believe' there is global warming, but not 'know' there is global warming.
4. The Congressman also says that he "believe[s] it is important for Congress to make policy that is economically responsible, and scientifically valid..." Based on the preceding points, I don't believe that Congress can make any environmental policies related to global warming that are "scientifically valid."
5. At least Congressman Jones concludes that "We should not enact legislation that will harm Americans based on untested theories and disputed scientific conclusions." I hope that Congressman Jones will not confuse his 'belief' in global warming with scientific facts, and apparent lies.

I sent Congressman Jones a follow up email as he invited in his letter. As of this posting I have not heard back from the Congressman on that email.

Why Won't Congress and The President Get USA Off Foreign Oil?

Ever wondered why since our first modern energy crisis in the 1970's the USA has not had a comprehensive Energy Policy under either a Democratic or Republican Congress or President? It hasn't made the slightest difference who has been in charge in Congress or the White House, we have continued to rely on foreign oil, while the US domestic reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas are extensive.

With the energy crisis beginning in 1973 during the Nixon Administration, we were promised that we would identify new sources of domestic energy, and that with research and development we would be independent of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Jimmy Carter laid out a plan that he said would address the energy crisis, and said that the world's oil supply could only keep up with America's demand for six to eight more years, and in 1977 Carter created the Department of Energy to lead the charge in making us energy independent. Carter then proceeded to halt research and development on new nuclear technology (breeder reactors at Oak Ridge National Laboratories), and significantly slowing the construction of new US nuclear plants thus cutting off a major source of energy to replace foreign oil. Carter the ushered in new environmental regulations, furthering the energy crisis of the late 1970's. Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_administration#Energy_crisis

Because of the 1970's energy crisis, high inflation, some government programs and regulations, and predictions by Carter and his administration that the world was about to run out of oil, the US consumption of energy dropped. With the drop in consumption and the development of new oil resources, the 1980's became a period of oil glut. Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut Each President from Nixon, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush, and now Obama has promised to make us energy independent. They usually promise to do it by research and development, moving to green energy sources, and even building new nuclear energy plants. Then they ask us all to sacrifice and conserve while they fly the world over to Copenhagen, Hawaii, Europe, Asia, the Great Wall of China and so on.

The US economy is built on fossil fuels; from cars, planes, trucks, homes, factories, everything. It can't be replaced overnight. It hasn't been replaced in 40 years; in fact, probably less than 10% of the energy we used 40 years after the first energy crisis comes from sources other than fossil fuels. The government has spent millions of dollars, if not billions, in research and development on alternative energies and in subsidies for alternative energies, and we still run the country on fossil fuel.

Even with the recognition following the September 11th terrorist attacks that a portion (maybe a large portion) of the money we send to OPEC nations ends up funding terrorism against the US, we still pour billions of dollars into those countries. Maybe if we stopped buying their oil they would just implode. Even when we have potential offshore and onshore oil and gas reserves, we get lots of excuses as to why we can't develop our own resources, or build more nuclear power plants, and ever why we just can't "go green," but you don't hear much about what it would do to the terrorist if we cut off their main source of funding, or the jobs that would be created in America with more energy development within the US, or what the "road map" is from where we are energy-wise now to where we should be in ten, fifteen, or thirty years.

The Excuses:
Damage to the environment- Oh, if we drill for oil here there might be an oil spill; if we mine coal like that we are destroying a mountain; if we put a pipeline there the Caribou will die; yada, yada. I happen to believe that we can do all these things responsibly, and if someone screws up they should be held accountable; penalize heavily with fines or jail. I want to have a clean, safe environment but I don't want to live like the did in the middle-ages, or as many do now in Africa, Bangladesh, and many other places in the world.

It just looks ugly (or Not In My Backyard)- This one applies equally to oil rigs, nuclear plants, and wind turbines (just ask Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy (oh, you can't)). They didn't want wind turbines built off the coast of Cape Cod because they look ugly. It's okay to build them in Kansas, but not Cape Cod. Or more appropriate for John Kerry, it's okay for the Proletariat, but not for us Aristocrats.

Not enough fossil resources- This is often used by the political elites like Jimmy Carter who predicted that America would run out of fossil fuel in six to eight years (see above reference), which would have been in 1983 to 1986 ... hmmmm it's now 2010. Awww, he was just a little off (his rocker). It's so damn inconvenient when they discover new sources of oil isn't it Jimmy?

Alternatives too costly- There's some truth to this one. Fossil fuels are at present much cheaper that any of the alternatives. Every alternative to fossil fuels has been heavily subsidized by the government (aka you the US taxpayer) to even look attractive. Yes, even ethanol is heavily subsidized otherwise gas with ethanol couldn't possibly compete with plain gasoline. So, if you think about it every time you buy gas with ethanol you are paying more than you would if you bought gas without ethanol. Oh, I know they look the same at the pump, but then you have to add the ethanol subsidy you pay to get the real cost.

Need for more Research and Development- All the Presidents since Nixon have promise "the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" of research and development. And while there have been developments, the progress has been incremental while the costs have been staggering. I once had a boss that I didn't like very much (at least until later in my career) who said that "at some point you have to 'freeze' the research and development and get something into the field." That means you have to start producing the product and using it. In 40 years, we still don't have an electric car that most people can afford; and if you bought an electric car at today's prices you'd have to own it for 20 years to pay for it with the energy cost savings over that of a gas-powered car. How many people do you know that keep a car for 20 years?

I know I didn't really offer an answer to the question, Why Won't Congress and The President Get USA Off Foreign Oil? I'm not sure I know. There might be multiple answers, all which may be right. I'd like to hear some plausable explanations though, but not the excuses I've already discussed. The excuses are just that. They are a diversion from the truth. Why are the excuses a diversion? Because they can all be solved. They can all be implemented without harming anything. But for some unknown reason, our elected officials just don't want to.

OBITUARY

Born 1776, Died 2008

It does not hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19; McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000; McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million;
McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2; McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom and OUR country.

(ref. personal email)

Letter from Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC)

The letter below is a letter from NC Senator Kay Hagan justifying her "yea" vote for the Senate health care bill:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 5, 2010
Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about health care reform. I greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on these important issues.

Each year, costs associated with our current health care system increase. North Carolinians are struggling to afford insurance coverage, and the unprecedented economic crisis facing our nation has made it still more difficult for working families to manage medical costs while making ends meet. In North Carolina alone, the number of uninsured has risen to approximately 1.8 million, which represents 22 percent of the state's population.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590, is a fiscally responsible plan that will reduce the deficit by nearly $132 billion in the next 10 years. I have heard from so many North Carolinians who are cut off from health care because of pre-existing conditions. Under this legislation, insurance companies will no longer be able to use ‘pre-existing conditions' as an excuse to deny coverage. The bill expands coverage and lowers costs by focusing on prevention and cracking down on fraud and abuse in the system. Additionally, the legislation gives states the authority to form compacts to purchase health insurance across state lines and regionally.

As you know, there are various opposing views within the health care reform debate, and I would like to address a few here. When crafting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Senate went to great lengths to ensure that if you have a health insurance plan that you like, you can keep it. Also, the Senate legislation would require Members of Congress and their congressional staff to participate in the Exchange, where the uninsured and other eligible Americans will be able to obtain affordable health coverage.

I recognize that medical liability reform has the potential to reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums for health care providers and decrease defensive medicine practices. Accordingly, I am in favor of President Obama's plan to implement demonstration projects to evaluate medical liability models being used and implemented around the United States.

In addition, concern has been raised about illegal aliens being able to receive medical services under health care reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act defines an eligible individual as a citizen or national of the United States who is lawfully present in the United States. Illegal immigrants would be explicitly barred from receiving services under the legislation.

Also, some believe abortion services could be covered under health care reform. This is inaccurate, due to a long-standing federal law that includes a broad prohibition against using federal funds for abortion services. Health care reform would not change that prohibition, which is known as the Hyde Amendment.

Furthermore, it has come to my attention that some believe there would be rationing of health care services under health care reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would not do anything to limit the ability of your doctor to pursue the course of care he or she believes is most appropriate for you. While the bill would fund research into the comparative effectiveness of various treatments, that information will simply serve as a tool for practitioners to use as they see fit. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act specifically states that any recommendations made under health care reform shall not be construed as mandates for payment, coverage, or treatment of health services.

I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues and stakeholders throughout North Carolina to help pass pragmatic, comprehensive health care reform. To view the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I encourage you to visit www.thomas.loc.gov.
Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,



Kay R. Hagan

Please do not reply to this email. Instead, if you have further questions, please visit www.hagan.senate.gov and fill out my web form for your inquiry. Thank you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If she really believes this crap, she needs her head examined!

Steps to Freedom

Step 1 - Re-register as independent or unaffiliated. That's the quickest way to send a clear message to the Congress and the President. Each of the parties keep up with the registration trends in their states, and they are most concerned about what independent voter's will do.



In Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" he says "If you are still brainwashed by a particular party, it's time for a reassessment. DECLARE YOUR INDEPENDENCE!"



Some people worry that they will not be able to vote in their state primary, but in most states changing your party affiliation is pretty simple, and it can be changed before the primaries are held. Check out the requirements in your state. In NC, for example you can change parties via the Internet. So what's your excuse?


Step 2 - Stop donating, if you do, to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Instead, donate directly to the candidate that you know and trust. Talk about creating politician panic and getting their attention!

Step 3 - Find candidates of either party who will aggressively support term limits, and do whatever you can to support them.



Congress was right when they imposed term limits on the Office of the President with the 22nd Amendment in 1951, and the Congress should be held to the same standard.



There are many arguments for not supporting term limits for Congress, like "Senator 'So and So' is a good conservative, and we need him." Well, the truth is no one is irreplaceable; our Constitution provides for a chain-of-command for new leadership in the event high officials become incapacitated. Here's a link for some Arguments for a Term Limit Constitutional Amendment http://educationdept.blogspot.com/2009/12/argument-for-constitutional-amendment.html



Check out this propose Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits http://educationdept.blogspot.com/2009/12/constitutional-amendment.html

Step 4 - Encourage candidates who support term limits to run as independents; why should DNC &RNC get any credit or say?

In Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" he says "Both [parties] have been infected with progressivism-the belief that your individual rights are subservient to government power and that no personal liberty is above sacrificing for the greater good . . ."

Step 5 - Support candidates who will work for the Fair Tax; the tax code is how politicians keep you in line. That's where their power lies.

Step 6 - Support candidates that believe in States Rights; states running their own business, & who oppose laws requiring state compliance.


And remember “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Margaret Thatcher