The President had just completed his speech on climate change and global warming here in the Alaskan village of Kotzebue with a pointed reference to the erosion of the shoreline when as if to punctuate his words a tumultuous roar echoed from a calving glacier across the bay and in that instant the crowd was fleeing to higher ground…..
This reporter found it was almost impossible to run because the soil on the beach acted like a sticky mud that sucked at your every footstep. But run we did because there was a massive wave rushing toward the shoreline from that calving glacier across the bay. There were hundreds of us pushing and shoving and for a brief instant I thought I reached the harder soil of the land above the beach but when I glanced down I saw I was stepping not on solid ground but someone that had fallen in the rush to escape the oncoming wave……..
Fiction….of course but no more than the results from the policies the President is speaking about here in Kotzebue. One must wonder why of all the communities in Alaska, along the longest shoreline in America, the President chose this one. Could it be because this one Alaskan village from all the others is faced with major natural coastal erosion problems and thus was nothing more than a good ‘photo-op’ from which to announce his plans?
Those who have lived along the Alaskan or Eastern seaboard for any number of years know beach erosion is just a normal part of living along that coastline. People from Florida to Maine have had to either reinforce there beachfront properties with additional sand or rocks and even place their homes on stilts or move to ensure their safety, and not one of these things were done because of climate change or global warming but historically natural coastal erosion.
The President also eluded to the glaciers melting but one wonders why he failed to mention that some are also increasing in size. It was reported in a 2002 article in Science 295: 476-80 that “…Side-looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr.
It is also good to remember when the President wants to cut carbon emissions that he believes are causing global warming that a cut in carbon emissions from all the electric power plants in the United States would not equal the carbon emissions from just one major forest fire. In an article entitled ‘Climate and atmospheric history…..from the Vostok ice core’ in the 1999 issue of Nature 399: 429-36 it stated “…During the last four interglacial’s, going back 420,000 years, the earth was warmer than it is today”
However if one steps back and thinks logically they would also have to say humans due cause a rise in the global temperature. It is just common sense that if you put 100 people in a room the temperature of that room will rise, so if you put four billion people on the planet the temperature of the planet will definitely rise but does this mean that government should step in? Again common sense should rule when others try and incite fear over facts and historical occurrences.
So when we see an increase in temperature
or glaciers melting
think horses not Zebras.
Yes man does play a part in climate change
but this earth
has been cycling through climate change
long before man walk this earth.
I believe our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves watching how the government they established to protect its citizens, is finding ever more ways to restrict their freedoms. Anyone who has read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence knows that the government was created for the expressed purpose of protecting its citizens freedoms from oppressive governments both foreign and domestic. In the 1700’s our government was created to free its people from the yoke of oppression from England, but the founding fathers also wanted to insure that future generations would never end up in that position again.
Today the weight of English rule would look light compared to the continuing constraints our government is placing on our shoulders. We now live in a nation where every activity we do is in some way regulated. Weather it be by the federal or state government or one of its agencies we can now literally do nothing that is not regulated by a government that was supposed to ensure our freedom. From the length of dog leashes in Arizona to the size of soft drinks in New York or for that matter even what type of wood one can burn for heat in Alaska our freedoms are daily being eroded. Also the once highly held freedom of religion is also being slowly chipped away at when we see ordinary people being put out of business for standing behind their religious principles.
However Americas beacon of freedom must still be shinning
because millions of people still flood across our border
seeking a better way of life
embraced by the warmth of that freedom.
The noise was deafening and as the smoke slowly drifted away I could see that the bullet went completely through the radio…… after a few minutes awareness… like the smoke came drifting back into my mind. I had been listening to NPR and they were talking about why so many black men were in prisons and how the laws in America were basically racist.
Having spent a brief period in jail I know why one goes to jail…..you commit a crime! However unless one was a total idiot you undoubtedly would not agree with those ‘news’ reports on NPR that the jails were full of black men because the laws that put them there were racist. The reports stated fact after fact that because the laws focused on certain types of criminal behavior it was targeting black men. They even went so far as to condemn the three strike sentencing applied in a number of states as another reason for why the prisons were full of minorities.
Maybe I am wrong, but I see the law itself as color blind. If I committed the same crime I would also be in prison so how can that law be racist? If I also continue to commit crimes after I get out of prison and do it three or more times then I am also bound by the three strike sentencing. Maybe it’s just me but if I do not want to go to jail I just do not commit any crimes.
Making some criminal behavior legal
does not lower the crime rate,
changing one’s respect for the law does.
In this day and age when almost all conversations are censored due to the oppressive shadow of political correctness it has been like a breath of fresh air of late because of some of the comments made by the candidates running for President. It may sound childish but to me when almost every newscast has some report on Trumps outline for immigration I can only assume it is like the 1700’s when our founding fathers spoke out against the tyranny of England. Because of the number of candidates running for President they must say something that separates them from the pack, and just maybe we will see what lies under that fake ‘paid for’ political veneer.
Now we have another candidate using the politically incorrect phrase ‘anchor baby’, which in an of itself is an actuate description of most illegal aliens babies born in the United States. How else would you describe this baby, because the baby was born on American soil he is automatically a US citizen and can not be deported? Along with that his parents who entered the country illegally are considered legal guardians and also can not be deported, thus the term ‘anchor baby.’ I in no way see how this is an offensive term when it is in reality just a statement of fact.
If many are offended by the term ‘anchor baby’
how do they explain the fact that
many of these parents wait until the last days
before their baby is born
to sneak across the border?
Abud Merhawi, 21 is from Eritrea, has been told by friends and relatives how easy it is to find a job in England and how quickly one’s application for asylum is accepted, so Abud had been hiding for hours in the high grass alongside the fence that blocks access to the railroad tracks where they enter the tunnel heading from Calais, France to England. As soon as he and the hundred or more men and woman heard the rumble of the slow moving train they climbed the fence and rushed to board the train as it passed them. However there were so many people crowding the train he failed to get on board but he would return again tomorrow, because for him and thousands of others this was their only path to a better life.
Let me begin by saying in no way could I ever see handing over the nuclear launch codes to Mr Trump. That said last night the internet out here on the edge of nowhere worked flawlessly and I managed to read a number of news websites where I learned of Trump’s speech where he outlined, (yes actually went into specifics), about what he would do about illegal immigration, and I actually agreed with his outline.
After he said, “a nation without laws is not a nation” and decreed that “there must be a wall across the southern border.” He also stated that “Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced,” and went on to actually list what actions he wanted to see enacted among them were a “mandatory return” of any criminal illegals and the defunding of sanctuary cities.
An article detailing Trump’s outline on illegal immigration can be found at:
I started writing this posting well before I read Trump’s words because I wanted to grumble about the fact that the United States is not the only country suffering from the deadweight of illegals. From Germany, Italy, Spain and France to England and Turkey countries across the globe are facing a flood of people with their hands out looking for something better than they had in their own country.
One small example is in Calais, France where there is a camp called the Jungle where 3000 illegals are massed and wait for the opportunity to sneak on to the train heading over to England. In the past few weeks, the “jungle” has not only come to symbolize a humanitarian catastrophe in the middle of one of the richest regions in the world. It also serves as a reminder of Europe’s inability to find a strategy for dealing with the refugees. One must wonder if England was not as free with its aid to illegals like the United States would their be such a problem in Calais?
An expanded article about Calais can be found at:
Looking down from the top of the world here I see a vast migration from the worlds poorer countries to ones that have a higher standard of living, with a total disregard for any nations laws. But does this mean those who do not enjoy a comfortable lifestyle can just walk in and demand we give them what they need? Does it mean they are entitled to the same life that you and I worked to obtain?
I think not, because in 1929 our nation experienced a depression that left millions either homeless and without work or begging on the streets for food, and you did not see a steady stream of Americans crossing the border illegally to Canada asking for a better life.
Most of these same illegal immigrants also attest to leaving their home country because of the violence they live with on a daily basis due to war raging in their country. But I remember that during the civil war when our nation was divided and the violence of war raged across our nation once again the people of America did not flee across the border looking for a safer environment.
No they stayed suffered and worked through that war and depression to build the strongest and richest nation on the face of this earth. Maybe if the European Union enacted the same principles that Mr Trump is talking about we could end this massive migration before it pulls the world into a global depression that we may not be able to recover from.
Yes for many the grass may seem greener
on the other side of the road
but that does not mean
someone can just walk across the street
and expect a better life to
be handed to them.
My continuing thanks to Winlink
the emergency ham radio email system
for making this posting possible.
When communication and the internet fail
amateur radio is there to help
Though this incident happened to me a number of years ago I think it is relevant to societal actions we see today across our nation…..It was a crisp cold, intensely bright afternoon as I drove past Eielson Air Force Base East of Fairbanks. As I looked to my left I could not believe my luck because at the edge of the runway was a fighter jet preparing to take off. I immediately stooped the truck got my camera out and started to take pictures. As the earth shaking roar subsided I noticed a line of these fighters queuing up to take off. Being so close to the runway the sound was so deafening I did not hear it when two SUV’s rolled up, and only when an assault rifle was pointed at me did I realize something was up.
Right off the start lets define the word criminal used in this posting. My older edition of Webster’s dictionary defines criminal as “having the nature of crime”. I am applying the term to mean anyone who breaks the law or fails to follow directions from law enforcement officer. Well to these military police I was considered a criminal for just standing here taking pictures. My truck was searched and when they found a loaded handgun in the trucks armrest I too was searched. It should be noted that for years I have stopped in virtually the very same spot to watch and photograph jets at the airbase with no problem, but just this year they had new signs erected that said no stopping or photography. Even after I presented my veterans ID card it still took almost two hours before I was back on my way.
Why do I bring this up… for the simple reason I am still alive. I was taught from the day I was old enough to travel away from my parents home alone that if I am ever stopped by a policeman I must do what they say without question and to never argue with them. I personally feel that almost everyone of the shootings lately were if not caused by at the very least aggravated by the person being detained arguing or failing to comply with what the officers told them to do. I also believe that these same men and woman did not act the way they did because they woke up one day and decided to hate all law enforcement officers but because they were taught to act that way.
It may not have been the overt act of teaching hatred, but the more subtle way of listening to years and years of comments by their parents exhibiting a total lack of respect for the police. That coupled with their friends echoing the same feelings and you have a person who when stopped for something as innocent as walking down the street late at night and stopped for an ID check becomes instantly belligerent and refusing to comply with what is asked of them. This at times leading to the officer arresting them not breaking the law but for failure to comply, and then the situation escalates into a physical conflict that has at times lead to that person being shot.
If you think this old man is nuts because I think it was ingrained in them by their parents? Just look at how the adults acted at the recent anniversary demonstration in support of Michael Brown shot in Ferguson where once again people rioted and shots were first fired from the demonstrators. Compare that to the latest funeral for the police officer shot while doing a car stop where thousands of people marched in peace not violence.
I did what the police asked of me
they did what they had to do
I drove away two hours late
Who’s parents do you think set the better example?