Documents: ATF used “Fast and Furious” to make the case for gun regulations

By Sharyl Attkisson

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

PICTURES: ATF “Gunwalking” scandal timeline

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.” But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called “gunwalking,” and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 “disappointing and ironic.” Keane says it’s “deeply troubling” if sales made by gun dealers “voluntarily cooperating with ATF’s flawed ‘Operation Fast & Furious’ were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles.”

The Gun Dealers’ Quandary

Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.

Sometimes it was against the gun dealer’s own best judgment.

Read the email

In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. “We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys,” writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, “(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items.”

Read the email

ATF’s group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there’s nothing to worry about. “We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail.”

Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.

“I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands…I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country.”

“It’s like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back,” says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. “It’s a circular way of thinking.”

The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.

The “Demand Letter 3″ Debate

The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that’s unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.

Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they “have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico.” The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.

On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to “commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs.”

Reaction

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. “There’s plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we’ve learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It’s pretty clear that the problem isn’t lack of burdensome reporting requirements.”

On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how “Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities.” So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.

“In light of the evidence, the Justice Department’s refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable,” Rep. Issa told CBS News.

Three peas in a pod: Newt, Mitt, Barack

By Ezra Klein, Washington Post
In Print: Wednesday, November 30, 2011

According to the polls and the pundits, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are the two front-runners for the Republican nomination for president. That means both of them will spend the next few weeks trying to show that they are more competent, conservative and generally Reagan-like than the other.

But I’m a uniter, not a divider. I don’t want to focus on the differences between Romney and Gingrich. I want to focus on the commonalities. Because these two men have a lot in common not only with each other but also with President Barack Obama.

Both Gingrich and Romney, for instance, supported a universal health care plan backed by an individual mandate requiring all Americans of means to purchase health care insurance — just as Obama does.

They have their excuses, of course. Gingrich says he supported such a plan in the 1990s only because he was working to defeat HillaryCare. But that doesn’t explain why he published an op-ed in 2007 arguing that Congress should “require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond.” And last week, David Corn of Mother Jones reported that that position was still on the website of Gingrich’s Center for Health Transformation.

Romney’s excuse is that he supported an individual mandate only at the state level. And he was governor of Massachusetts — the bluest of blue states. He would never have proposed such a thing nationally.

But in June 2009, Romney appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press and, responding to comments from David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political adviser, said the Republican Party needs to be able to say, “Listen, Mr. Axelrod, you’re wrong when you say we don’t have ideas.” Among those ideas? “The right way to proceed is to reform health care. That we can do, as we did it in Massachusetts, as Wyden-Bennett is proposing doing it at the national level.”

The Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act, in case you’ve not read the bill lately, included a national individual mandate.

Romney, Gingrich and Obama ultimately share something quite important: They are policy wonks who believe that the federal government should marshal its resources and work to solve pressing national problems. What’s unclear is whether they share something that is, perhaps, even more important: the courage to pursue good policies even in the face of significant political cost.

Take the individual mandate. The irony here is that Obama opposed an individual mandate before Gingrich and Romney did. His opposition to an individual mandate, in fact, was one of the key distinctions between his campaign and Hillary Clinton’s.

But when Obama became president, he was persuaded by his advisers, who made two arguments: First, if health care reform was to bar insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, it would require an individual mandate to guard against healthy people gaming the system and only purchasing insurance once they got sick. Second, if the bill was to have any chance of securing bipartisan support, it would have to embrace an individual mandate, as that was a key element in Republican thinking about health care reform.

So though the policy polled poorly and advocating it meant going back on previous campaign promises, the Obama administration called for an individual mandate. But rather than welcome Obama’s concession to policy reality and Republican ideas, Gingrich and Romney turned against the very policy they had supported — in Romney’s case, a policy he had signed into law and implemented. It wasn’t exactly a profile in courage, much less presidential leadership.

Being truly Reagan-like requires a certain ideological flexibility. Reagan cut taxes, of course. But he also raised them when deficits exploded. Reagan tried to cut Social Security, but after the Senate rejected his proposal, he set about strengthening and even expanding the program. Reagan initially opposed the creation of Medicare, but in his last year in office he tried to add catastrophic insurance to the program. Reagan was tough on the Soviet Union, but he was able to negotiate effectively when the time came. Reagan, in other words, could campaign, but he could also govern. Can Romney and Gingrich?

© 2011 Washington Post

Outrage!… After Demanding Refund From City, Richmond Tea Party Gets Letter – “You’re Being Audited”

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, November 28, 2011, 8:46 AM

The City of Richmond charged the local tea party $10,000 to hold three rallies at the Kanawha Plaza … But, the #Occupy squatters were allowed to set up a tent city on the plaza for free.

After complaining about this double standard and demanding a refund the Richmond tea party received a letter last week that they are being audited.

Richmond tea party patriots hold a Tax Day rally in the plaza. (Examnier Photo)

In late October the Richmond Tea Party sent a letter to city officials demanding a refund for the $10,000 the group spent on permits, portable toilets, police presence and emergency personnel for three rallies held at same plaza where the Occupy Richmond squatters set up their camp. Now the tea party is being audited.

Right Side News reported:

Two weeks after the Richmond Tea Party delivered an invoice to Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones for costs incurred for previous rallies; we received a letter from the City of Richmond formally stating that the city is auditing our Tea Party. Coincidence? This audit is an obvious attempt to intimidate and harass us for standing up against the unfair treatment and discrimination against our Tea Party.

As reported on the front page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, the Richmond Tea Party delivered an invoice for charges incurred in our previous three Tax Day rallies at Kanawha Plaza because Mayor Jones chose to allow Occupy Richmond protesters to convene in the same park for two weeks.

The Mayor not only allowed the Occupiers to break the law, but he visited them in the city-owned park. “Jones said that as a ‘child of civil rights’ and protests, he had allowed the group to remain in the park but understands his mayoral responsibility to uphold laws of the city,” reported the Richmond Times Dispatch.

Apparently his mayoral duties included preferential treatment for a group he sympathizes with ideologically at the expense of the taxpayers.

The blog Virginia Right reported that the city provided services such as portable toilets, trash pickup etc. The incomplete invoices obtained from the city totaled $7,000. This was only a portion of the actual costs to taxpayers because the costs of police, helicopter and incarcerations were not included. Also not accounted for was the 24-hour police protection of the Mayor’s home after the Occupiers moved their camp next door to the Mayor’s house. The Richmond Tea Party, conversely, paid for all services for our rallies, including the police, portable toilets, park fees and permits, amounting to approximately $8,500.

Last week the tea party received this letter from the City of Richmond.
They are being audited.

In the audit letter signed by Cynthia Carr, Field Auditor for the City of Richmond, it states that our Tea Party is delinquent in filing of Admissions, Lodging, and Meals Taxes with the city and as such our group has been targeted for a comprehensive audit.
What thuggery.

** I hope you all help me spread word of this obvious abuse of power.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/outrage-after-demanding-refund-from-city-for-plaza-protests-richmond-tea-party-gets-letter-youre-being-audited/

Apr 28th 2009, 14:09 by The Economist

THE scolds at Media Matters, a liberal group that too often spends its time pointing out that Rush Limbaugh said something untoward, make a good catch: Newt Gingrich has utterly flipped his position on “cap and trade”. In 2007, “mandatory caps, a trading system inside the caps… and a tax incentive to be able to invest in the new technology and to be able to produce the new technology” was a brilliant idea. In 2009, this is part of a “command-and-control, anti-energy, big-bureaucracy agenda, including dramatic increases in government power and draconian policies that will devastate our economy.”

So, Newt Gingrich is a bit of a flake. Not news. The thing is, Mr Gingrich is the closest thing Republicans have to a field marshal, and as much as they ignored his 2007 flurry of ideas (he was, at least in public, mulling a run for president), they have yet to reject one of his ideas for opposing Barack Obama. It’s paradoxical. Cap and trade gained some momentum because conservatives were open to it, while rejecting most other ideas put forward by environmentalists. Mr Gingrich’s two-step may actually rule out any Republican rapprochement on green policy. Some enterprising conservative needs to take the lead on this, and not just to save the party from Mr Gingrich’s buffoonery.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/04/we_must_save_the_world_from_my

The establishment has left the flubber Rick Perry in the dust and may do likewise to Mitt Romney as the 2012 election season gears up. It looks like they are putting their money behind the former Speaker of the House and seasoned globalist, Newt Gingrich.

On Sunday, Gingrich received the endorsement of the influential editorial board of the New Hampshire Union Leader. “We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing,” said an editorial penned by publisher Joseph W. McQuaid.

“A lot of candidates say they’re going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again,” he added.

The Union Leader endorsement is considered influential because New Hampshire is an early primary state. “The failure to win the board’s endorsement may be a setback for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign which has struggled to win support from Tea party-affiliated voters and the right-wing of the GOP base,” reports The Hill.

Despite the endorsement for Gingrich, however, Romney still leads in the first primary state. According to a Suffolk University/7News poll conducted last week, Romney has the support of 41 percent of likely GOP voters. Gingrich came in second with 14 percent and tied with Texas Rep. Ron Paul.

A Bloomberg poll held on November 10 placed Ron Paul second at 17 percent, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich came in at 11 percent. All the other candidates were below 10 percent.

The Union Leader endorsement is designed to push Gingrich above Paul in the polls. The establishment is vexed by Ron Paul’s stubborn popularity despite its best efforts to ignore him and minimize his participation during its highly stage-managed debates.

CFR globalist Newt Gingrich is the ideal candidate for the ruling elite. He has served the elite faithfully and helped it trade away our national sovereignty. He worked with Bill Clinton to foist NAFTA on the American people and move millions of jobs into the China slave labor system of totalitarian globalism.

During his stint in the House, Gingrich also supported GATT and the WTO, two big cornerstones of the one-world government agenda. “Gingrich’s Benedict Arnold act helped to hand over the power to regulate foreign commerce, a power reserved in the Constitution to Congress alone, to an internationally controlled body, making America’s economic interests entirely at the mercy of the WTO,” explains Rebecca Terrell, writing for Campaign for Liberty.

Now that he is masquerading as a “conservative” in order to fool Americans next November, Gingrich has backed away from the climate change mantra he so unenthusiastically supported before he was groomed once again for GOP nominee.

In the video below, Newt shills for climate legislation with Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Last week he told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that the ad “is probably the dumbest thing I’ve done in recent years.”

In 2007, however, Mr. Speaker was talking out the other side. At that time, Gingrich praised Democrat John Kerry’s book about environmentalism and said global warming is real. He offered what amounted to an unexpected apology for his party’s inaction on curtailing greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Boston Globe.

Gingrich, of course, is fully behind the plan to implement carbon taxes under the ruse of climate change, but will turn in an Oscar performance in order to trick the voting public. If elected, he will turn on a dime, pull an Obama, and go back on his disavowal of the climate change agenda.

Gingrich likes to parade as a constitutionalist. In fact, he is a sworn enemy of the Constitution. His Contract With America was one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation to ever come down the congressional pike. It proposed amending the Constitution with a “balanced budget amendment,” a completely unnecessary proposal if Congress would only act on constitutional programs.

Gingrich’s Contract also allocated a ton of money to unconstitutional “federal crime-fighting measures, despite the Constitution’s prohibition on federal involvement in police matters outside of piracy and treason. Countries that do not have such strict constitutional safeguards on federal police end up with Gestapos, KGBs, and Departments of Homeland Security,” notes Terrell.

Newt has also expressed his contempt for the concept of a Fourth Amendment when he told Fox’s Bill O’Reilly that Americans should be subjected to drug testing. He cited the advanced police state of Singapore as an example of the sort of drug policy the United States should have.

Finally, in order to understand just how dedicated Gingrich is to destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, consider that he described himself as a “conservative futurist” who enthusiastically recommended as Speaker of the House his colleagues read Alvin Toffler’s 1980 book The Third Wave.

In the book, Toffler wrote a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented – a democracy for the 21st century.” According to Toffler, our constitutional system is one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/globalist-candidate-gingrich-gets-influential-establishment-endorsement.html

FIGHTING THE LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE COURTS WITH THE GROWING TEA PARTY CAUCUS.

In 1986 the Simpson/ Mazzoli bill gave a mass amnesty to every illegal immigrant who settled in America. The need for Guest Workers is one of the most predominant issues allied with the invasion that has taken place in the last thirty years. The Guest Worker has never been obedient with the Dept of Labor regulations since it’s been inundated with fraud. Even after the volume amnesty signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, the opportunists in businesses used their influence to crush the immigration obligations assigned to them. In other words they kept on hiring foreign nationals that was in violation of the law;, the administrations have intentionally overlooked this major problem. The 1986 amnesty allowed the rough figure of 3.5 million, scatter to the four winds leaving the designated farms deserted and the workers joining the main stream work in the cities and communities.

Even the original process was nothing more than a travesty of the “Rule of Law.” The numbers of the final immigration tally that was given amnesty was around 6 million, with illegal’s coming out of the woodwork brandishing bogus pre-dated utility bills and fraudulent documents accepted by the (INS) Immigration and Naturalization service; that has become (ICE) Immigration & Customs Service on September 11, 2001. All evidence that an foreigner was in the U.S. for a certain amount of time, or performed a certain number of days of field labor, was abridged to guarantee that all persons could qualify. INS offices were told to accept little more than scribbled copies of handwritten receipts and affidavits from so-called “people” (Not family members) who could attest that the applicant lived or worked for a certain amount of time somewhere in the US. Businesses and their lawyers have colluded with in killing any oversight of the majority of Guest Worker processes that have imported less capable, less skilled into America. Annually without public knowledge at least a million and a half semi-skilled workers (six stealth amnesties) come legally to America, which is a sell out to our own people.

Document mills sprung up countrywide, offering receipts and affidavits to help demonstrate your eligibility for amnesty and eligibility for a green card; this was one of the biggest contradictions to our laws, which should never have happened, nor happen again. Farms and agriculture by law are supposed to provide for the Guest Worker and the family, but instead when sick or injured the burden falls as usual on the taxpayer. For the children of Guest Workers born in the United States they become instant citizens and the American taxpayer only has to read the Pdf file “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine.”

Illegal Aliens and American Medicine

Even more than Medicare for seniors, Medicaid has become a giant financial anvil around taxpayers’ necks that new citizen children of illegal parents use. Somewhere between 200.000 and 250.000 children of illegal alien parents receive citizenship annually. This is outside the fiscal nightmare of mandatory education that is cramming our classrooms of these children having no conception of English. The neglect of American students is happening nationwide, because teachers are forced to fritter more attention to their learning of non-citizen foreigners. The consequences of that are thousands more teachers must be hired, with means more taxes extracted from us all. This procedure is habitual of dumping illegal alien workers in the emergency rooms, that has become a uncontrollable expenditure, adding to the near 15 Trillion deficit and yet another burden on US taxpayers. We can alway use exceptionally talented workers, but what we don’t need is the push of other governments poor and desperate who end up in our welfare lines.

Certainly not something the Liberal press will release to the public at large. Technology today has far surpassed the copy machines and document mills of the late 60′s. Any new immigration amnesty which includes Senator Harry Reid’s “Dream Act”, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, would be hard to control without state of the art innovations. The 20 million plus who are already illegally here would place America’s future in jeopardy, because of the Liberal Democrat agenda or Republicans ravenous need for cheap labor, crushing even more the legitimate lower income US job seeker. Hundreds of thousands of American less educated manual jobs have been displaced by illegal aliens. Not racial prejudice that Liberals cry out continuously, but a genuine need for jobs for Americans born here or legitimate permanent residents. For the two principle parties it’s about votes and profits.

This is where the TEA PARTY of the American people step up to the dais, and no more Club Republican elite or Liberal Progressives using “Political Correctness” tripe to divert the laws of this country. No matter what the majority Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says or Sen. Reid, the TEA PARTIES influence attributed to the lowering of the debt ceiling by 38 billion dollars. Not enough for sure, but better than nothing at all. Now the TEA PARTY will demand that a new mandated E-Verify becomes a main enforcement tool, followed closely by policing law 287 (g) and Secure Communities. E-Verify would used in audits to detect illegal workers, already working and those about to be hired. With extreme pressure on businesses that try to avoid the law, with chronic penalties of fines, business assets and licensing evoked and prison;

The TEA PARTY is no longer a few loosely unorganized groups as tired, Sen. Harry Reid wheezes-out, but a giant mobilized machine of propagating power. Next to keep the Republican on its tracks is the budget of 2012, beginning with cutting government agencies, stopping the shadow Liberals overspending, not retreating from re-analyzing the unfair treaties of NAFTA and CAFTA for the American consumer and above all else, to enforce all requirement of National Security. Which means the–REAL–fence to protect America from people and drug smuggling? THIS IS THE PEOPLE’S WAR, THAT WE ALL MUST DEFEND AGAINST THE GREED, CORRUPTION IN WASHINGTON AND THE ROT THAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY FROM WITHIN. Illegal Immigration effects jobs of the lowest paid, taxes, our schools, health care and growing irreversible OVERPOPULATION.

Immigration news: Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) has introduced a bill that would increase border security and strengthen interior enforcement. The Keeping the Pledge on Immigration Act of 2011 (H.R.1274) requires the US Government to deploy national guard troops to the border and includes the CLEAR Act that requires cooperation between the federal government and state and local law agencies in the enforcement of immigration laws. Learn more from NUMBERSUSA. Start calling your federal and local politician to be found in the blue pages of your phone directory and demand they co-sponsor H.R.1274. Don’t let illegal aliens spend your taxes anymore?

Immediate Red flag news: The 9th circuit court in the Sanctuary city of San Francisco that is hated appeals court by patriotic Americans, as its overrun by activist judges (Liberal Progressives) has blocked major sections of the strict Arizona illegal immigration law. Throw out all the pro-illegal immigrant politicians, Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs and councilors and city managers in the streets.

NO Copyright, ever! Distribute freely.
Brittanicus

Alan Greenspan:
“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. … This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.”

James Madison:
“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.”

Abraham Lincoln:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war”

James Paul Warburg:
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”

Barry Goldwater:
“Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside of the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States.”

G. D. McDaniel:
“If, as it appears, the experiment that was called ‘America’ is at an end … then perhaps a fitting epitaph would be … ‘here lies America the greatest nation that might have been had it not been for the Edomite bankers who first stole their money, used their stolen money to buy their politicians and press and lastly deprived them of their constitutional freedom by the most evil device yet created — The Federal Reserve Banking System.”

Louis McFadden:
“The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is eager to enter into close relationship with the Bank for International Settlements…. The conclusion is impossible to escape that the State and Treasury Departments are willing to pool the banking system of Europe and America, setting up a world financial power independent of and above the Government of the United States…. The United States under present conditions will be transformed from the most active of manufacturing nations into a consuming and importing nation with a balance of trade against it.”

Published: Thursday, November 24, 2011, 10:30 PM
By Scott Learn, The Oregonian

After crunching ice-age climate numbers, Oregon researchers and colleagues from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell and Barcelona came up with two encouraging conclusions about future global warming:

The planet appears less sensitive to carbon dioxide changes than expected, their study says, so extreme temperature increases in the near future appear highly unlikely.

And future warming may also be less than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, particularly at the upper end of the “likely” range.

“I think we should be worried, but we should not be desperate,” said Andreas Schmittner, an Oregon State University researcher and lead author of the study, published online today by the journal Science. “It’s not already too late to do something. We still have time to figure out a solution.”

It may seem strange that the frosty climate 21,000 years ago, the rough timing of the last glacial maximum, could inform today’s contentious global warming debate.

But the distant past has some key advantages over the present: The climate “signal” was unmistakable — it was an ice age after all.

And the climate over the huge time frames involved was relatively stable, unlike the short period when humans have tracked variables such as temperature, precipitation and atmospheric dust.

The study, funded by the National Science Foundation’s paleoclimate program, drew on the known extent of ice sheets in the past and levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide taken from air trapped in Antarctic ice cores.

Researchers also mapped ice-age temperatures based on pollen levels on land and concentrations of temperature-sensitive microorganisms in the ocean.

Schmittner and colleagues then ran a climate computer model at different “climate sensitivities” — the climate’s reaction to greenhouse gas levels — to see which sensitivities best pinpointed actual ice-age temperatures.

Their conclusion: The climate appears less sensitive to greenhouse gases than prior estimates. Based on the computer runs, doubling carbon concentrations would likely increase the world’s average temperature from 3.1 to 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit over preindustrial levels, the study predicts.

That’s lower than the IPCC’s likely temperature range for a doubling of carbon dioxide: 3.6 to 8.1 degrees. And it’s a far cry from increases of up to 18 degrees held out as low probability possibilities.

The study also concludes that increases greater than 11 degrees from a doubling of C02 “should be assigned near-zero probability.” Computer runs using such severe climate sensitivity modeled the globe as entirely covered in ice during the ice age, the study said. Schmittner said the actual number was closer to 10 percent.

The IPCC anticipates doubled C02 levels by 2100 under its most eco-friendly vision of the future global economy and by 2050 in its most fossil-fuel dependent scenario.

In a “perspective” article, also published online today by Science, two researchers from the University of Edinburgh not involved with the study praised it for tapping more ice age data than previous research, but pointed to significant caveats.

Schmittner’s study used only one climate model, they noted. Other models do a better job of pinning down atmospheric variables that affect climate, such as cloud formation.

Significant holes also remain in some of the ice age data. And using secondhand climate information — such as pollen levels — isn’t as certain as direct observations in modern times. Given those uncertainties, they said, “a firm upper boundary (of potential temperature change) is still elusive.”

Schmittner agreed that future studies should use more models to better pin down the results — the study used the one available to the researchers. But he said he’s confident the study’s “much lower” upper limits on temperature increases are robust and consistent with previous ice-age climate reconstructions.

Global warming critics have already cited the study’s publicly circulated abstract to criticize the IPCC and predictions of harm from global warming. Schmittner said he’s not in that camp.

Even the lower temperature increases predicted in the study could do serious damage, he said. The yardstick for the IPCC and the study — global average surface temperature — also masks the potential for larger increases in some regions.

And the study indicated that relatively modest swings in ocean temperatures can cause dramatic climate changes, Schmittner said, including ice formation and land temperatures.

“I don’t think (the study) rules out melting of ice sheets or permafrost,” he said. “The cautionary tale here is that very small changes in the ocean can correspond to very large changes over land.”

Eight researchers co-authored the study, “Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum.” Oregon scientists involved include Schmittner, Peter Clark and Alan Mix of Oregon State and Patrick Bartlein of the University of Oregon.

– Scott Learn

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/11/ice_age_analysis_suggests_glob.html

Armed illegals stalked Border Patrol

Mexicans were ‘patrolling’ when agent was slain, indictment says

Some Excellent Videos about Global Warming:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) sometimes referred to as man-made climate change is a very weak hypothesis, more bandwagon than science:

Professors Richard Lindzen, John Christy and Pat Michaels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Professor Bob Carter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Professors Ian Clark, Tim Ball and S Fred Singer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Global Warming or Global Governance?
http://video.google.com/videop…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Prof David Legates – Delaware State Climatologist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dr Roy Spencer
http://niklowe.blogspot.com/20…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Drs Svensmark & Christensen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dr David Evans Carbon Modeller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andrew Bolt with Profs Garth Paltridge (atmospheric Physicist) ; Prof Peter Ridd (Marine Physicist) and Prof Bob Carter (Environmental Scientist)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andrew Bolt & Prof Richard Lindzen debate Climate Change & Carbon Tax (CO2 NOT a pollutant)
http://climaterealists.com/?id…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://en.sevenload.com/videos…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Climate Change Conference
http://www.livestream.com/hear…