June, 2016, Part 2, Why I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: Manipulating The Numbers, Persecuting/Prosecuting the Non-Believers and Short Skirts Casue Climate Change

Every month we have enough material to return to a continuing theme in this blog, namely that “I am a global warming doubter AND a believer in science.” This became of interest because of people like Al Gore who fanatically and verbosely claimed that you had to be an idiot to not believe in manmade global warming. It has been my life belief that anyone that is that loud and that obnoxious is hiding something, that rather than argue facts and reality it is better to beat down and insult anyone who disagrees.

As we have dove into the whole issue of manmade global warming, or its new rebranded title of climate change, we found that Al Gore and people like him were guilty of a number of things:

• Ignoring science and realities that did not support their opinions and positions.
• Rather than have an adult conversation about climate, these types of advocates like Gore sank to the level of insulting those who dared look at ALL science by calling them a variety of names including racists, homophobes, terrorists, flat earth believers, and other slanderous names.
• Continuing to insist that politicians step up their intrusions into our lives with higher taxes, more regulations, and more control of our freedoms and standards of living based on a shaky theory at best.

To see the past posts and the multitude of evidence that we have compiled that showed it is perfectly okay to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, enter the phrase "global warming doubter” in the search box above or go through the monthly historical posts listed on the right side of this page.

Thus, let’s see the latest facts and science that prove you can be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, regardless of what Al Gore proclaims:

1) The President got back into the global warming hysteria business recently when he urged all Americans to prepare to flee their homes because of likely hurricane devastation caused by climate change. He called on every Americans to put together a disaster plan and set of supplies which is always sound advice, especially people like me that live in Florida. 

So it is not the “what” that I found silly it is the “why,” which Obama defines as “more powerful and devastating” hurricanes that climate change is going to bring to our shores. Perhaps he has not noticed that the U.S. has not been hit by a “devastating” hurricane for more than ten years (127 months and counting). In Florida, we have been in living the state since October, 2005 and have yet to experience being hit by a major hurricane. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is predicting a “near normal” Atlantic hurricane season this year.

His words: “All of us have seen the heartbreak, the damage and, in some case, the loss of life that hurricanes can cause. And as climate continues to change, hurricanes are only going to become more powerful and more devastating.”

Again, I appreciate the common sense warning but could he please, just once, not associate every weather change, every new warm front with man made global warming and climate change. The realities and recent history just make his “devastating” comments look foolish and reduce his credibility on the all important issue of being prepared just in case.

2) We have covered this reality in the past but is it is worth repeating since global warming advocates refuse to listen to reason and basic math. Over and over again people like Obama, Al Gore and other advocates for global warming/climate change throw out the single number of 97%, making the incorrect claim that 97% of all scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming/climate change. The implicit inference is that if you are a man made global warming/climate change doubter you are in a distinct minority against the overwhelming brain power of 97% of all scientists.

But they never explain where that magical, mystical 97% number comes from or what is behind it, how it was calculated, how valid it is, just rote repetition of 97%. We have already discussed this number in detail in a previous post:

http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2015/10/october-2015-part-2-i-am-global-warming.html

That post actually showed that the 97% was derived independently at least three different times (what a remarkable coincidence!), with two of those times the number being derived by masters degree students at two different universities, not even Phd holders.

However, the most widely cited source of the magical 97% number comes from a “study” done by a Mr. John Cook of the University of Queensland. This is the methodology he used to prove that 97% of all scientists support the concept of man made global warming and climate change: 

• Cook published a research paper in 2013 based on his study of 11,994 scientific papers, published between 1991 and 2011, papers that mentioned the search words, “global warming” and “global climate change.”
• Cook found that only 32.6% of the papers he researched actually supported the view of anthropogenic (or man made) global warming.
• Of that 32.6%, 97% said that “recent warming is mostly man-made,” i.e. they supported the position of Gore and Obama.
• And that is how the “97% of all scientists” myth and lie were created, it was 97% of 32.6%, a definite minority opinion of the over 11,000 papers researched.

Still don’t believe me? Here’s the actual, posted statement from the study:

We find that 66.4 percent of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6 percent endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent rejected AGW and 0.3 percent were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

The bottom line is the study’s authors cut and diced the data until they got the answer they wanted and politicians then ran with the answer despite not knowing how flawed it was. If anything, the percentage of scientists in the world, according to the 11,000 scientific papers examined, who support the concept of man made global warming and climate change is a minority, not an overwhelming majority.

3) Yesterday, we discussed the state government effort in California that wants to outlaw and prosecute free speech, the First Amendment, and the ability to have a different opinion than politicians by making it a crime to be a global warming doubter. We made the simple and logical analogy to George Orwell’s novel, 1984, in that the state is trying regulate thought and speech while suppressing anything that is contrary to the official state position, hardly a situation to have in a democracy.

But it appears that the state political class in California are not the only government bureaucrats and politicians that want to bring 1984-like suppression to the global warming debate. Onan Coca, writing for the Eagle Rising website, reported that:

• Apparently, Attorney Generals from several liberal leaning states have  been working with the Federal government, specifically Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to silence those of us that are global warming doubters by criminalizing that kind of thought process, you know, the kind that wants to examine ALL of the available climate data, not just the data and research that supports a pre-conceived notion.
• Fortunately, several democracy minded Senators have risen up to oppose such suppression of free speech.
• Senator Mike Lee took the issue up with Lynch directly with a letter that included the following passage: It has long been obvious that the Democratic Party’s assertion that the science of climate change is “settled” is little more than a cheap public-relations ploy masquerading as a monopoly on scientific knowledge. To give the matter a moment’s thought is to recognize that science – that field of inquiry dedicated to testing new theories, challenging prevailing views of the natural world, and overturning the conventional wisdom of the scientific community – cannot be settled.
• But that apparently had little impact on Lynch since she admitted in front of a Senate committee hearing that her department was having internal discussions to see if it was possible to prosecute organizations and individual citizens for holding opinions about man made climate change that she and others in the government found “objectionable.”

Anyone who loves freedom and liberty should be scared to death of this type of attitude and behavior. It basically says that unelected government bureaucrats can and will unilaterally decide what is illegal and uncalled for as far as free speech and the ability to have a personal opinion. It is the most blatant example of Obama’s 1984ism to date. So sad for our democracy that we are even having this discussion.

4) One last discussion for today’s and this month’s update on being a global warming doubter and a believer in science. In past discussions, we have discussed the harebrained conclusions that some advocates have put forth on what was causing global warming including beavers building dams and arctic squirrels burying nuts. But the latest theory on what is causing global warming/climate change may be the best, i.e. most insane, theory EVER.

According to a recent story on the MRCTV website by Thomas Murray on June 13, 2016:

• A senior Muslim cleric in Isfahan, Iran, Seyyed Youssef Tabatabi-nejad, recently stated in his sermon that that women dressing inappropriately is causing climate change.
• He urged Iran’s undercover morals police to crack down on “improper veiling” to keep Iran’s population as moral as possible and help keep global warming under control.
• In his sermon, the good cleric had that he had gotten photos of women next to the now dry Zayandeh-run River and that their improper dress had caused the river to dry up.

No comment I could put forth would do justice to such ignorance and stupidity. It seems all over the world, if there is a crisis of any kind, blame it on global warming/climate change ….and women’s short skirts, beavers, squirrels, and who knows what else.

There you have for today’s discussion: global warming advocates still cheating by manipulating data, the arrival of Orwell’s “1984” via global warming freedom suppression, and short skirts causing climate havoc. See why it is easy to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science: many of those that are on the other side of the argument are not believers in science. More next month.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

October, 2015, Part 2, I Am A Global Warming Doubtrer and A Believer In Science: Skewering The 97% Myth

Every month we have enough material to return to a continuing theme in this blog, namely that “I am a global warming doubter AND a believer in science.”This became of interest because of people like Al Gore who fanatically and verbosely claimed that you had to be an idiot to not believe in manmade global warming. It has been my life belief that anyone that is that loud and that obnoxious is hiding something, that rather than argue facts and reality it is better to beat down and insult anyone who disagrees.

As we have dove into the whole issue of manmade global warming, or its new rebranded title of climate change, we found that Al Gore and people like him were guilty of a number of things:

• Ignoring science and realities that did not support their opinions and positions.
• Rather than have an adult conversation about climate, these types of advocates like Gore sank to the level of insulting those who dared look at ALL science by calling them a variety of names including racists, homophobes, terrorists, flat earth believers, and other slanderous names.
• Continuing to insist that politicians step up their intrusions into our lives with higher taxes, more regulations, and more control on our freedoms and standards of living based on a shaky theory at best.

To see the past posts and the multitude of evidence that we have compiled that showed it is perfectly okay to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, enter the phrase "global warming doubter” in the search box above or go through the monthly historical post listed on the right side of this page.

Thus, let’s see the latest facts and science that prove you can be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, regardless of what Al Gore proclaims. Today we will focus only on the infamous 97% number and showoing how bougs it is.

1) Ian Tuttle, writing for the National Review, did a fabulous job showing how the infamous 97% number came from, a number that people like Al Gore and Barack Obama like to throw around to prove that anyone who is a global warming doubter is going against 97% of the climate scientists and experts in the world. The implication is how could you people be so stupid relative to the experts?

Well, Mr. Tuttle does a complete deconstruction of why that 97% number is bogus. What is interesting is that his research is so thorough that he actually finds different approaches that were used to get to the 97% myth and how each of those approaches is fatally flawed.

- According to the article, the first 97% number appeared in a 2009 University of Illinois survey study that had some serious flaws:

• The number was derived by a masters student, Kendall Zimmerman, and her advisor, Peter Doran.
• Thus, we are not talking about a well seasoned scientist, a PhD expert, or someone who has a long history in doing survey study work, we are talking about a student who does not even have her masters degree at the time.
• Her study consisted of, hold your breath, a two question online study. So participants in the study had the option of not responding to the survey, something that probably introduced bias into the study if it was not controlled for in the sample, something that does not appear to have been done.
• As a result, only 5% of the survey respondents, only about 160 people, were actually climate scientists, making statistical validity a little shaky, given the small sample size.
• But it gets worse. The 97% number was calculated off of a sample size that was half that size, 79 respondents.
• These 79 respondents were self-reported climate scientists which makes it impossible to tell if they actually were climate scientists or were mediocre climate scientists since they self reported.
• Out of this extremely small sample of 79, 77 of those agreed that global warming was caused by mankind.

As a statistician with an advanced degree in statistics, this is a horrible way to develop wide ranging conclusions. The sample size is very small. likely too small to do any extrapolation to the real world. I am sure that there are many, many more climate scientists in the world than 79. These 79 respondents are self-reported so there is no way to check if they are good or bad scientists or if they actually are climate scientists. 

And there is no way to check for response bias. It could be that the good climate scientists or those with a different opinion than the small number that responded could not be bothered answering a two question survey from someone who does not even have their masters degree yet.

- In 2010 William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, not a Phd,not an expert, a STUDENT, used Google Scholar in his analysis to conclude that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” 

Again, major problems with this analysis and approach. The sample size in this study was a little larger, 200, but still probably not large enough to be extrapolated to the entire universe of climate scientists in particular and scientists in general. As with the Illinois study, there is no indication if these were smart climate scientists or dumb climate scientists, whether they were self reported climate scientists, etc. in order to determine the quality of their knowledge and responses. 

And finally this study was done by a student, not a season scientists or Phd expert. Are we willing to accept their conclusions and develop national policies based on two small, probably biased survey studies by students with respondent samples that are suspect? I think not.

- According to Mr. Tuttle, “Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science.” This study had some serious flaws also:

• Mr. Cook obviously has a financial stake in the 97% number since he probably wants to sell more books and get traffic to his website, both of which advocate for manmade global warming.
• At first glance, Cook claims to have done an analysis of 12,000 scientific abstracts where he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” This large number of abstracts obviously overcomes the flaws in the previously discussed survey studies above where there were only 79 respondents in one study and only 200 in another.
• But “Among papers taking a position” is a significant disclaimers since only 34% of the papers Cook looked had any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Thus, our sample size has now been cut by two thirds and is not the lofty 12,000 abstracts and papers claimed on the surface.
• Since Cook decided that 33% of those supported the mankind causing global warming theory, he simply divided 33%by 34% to get 97%. Not real scientific.
• David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who once lead that university’s Center for Climatic Research tried to recreate Cook’s study and approach, a tried and true and widely accepted approach to verifying scientific conclusions, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” supported what Cook’s 97% conclusion.
• Additionally, several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample took exception that their work had been misinterpreted by Cook.
• “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

Since it appears that Dr. Legates is also a potential global warming doubter, we have another scienctific voice that supports the concept that being a global warming doubter and believer in science is a sane and rational approach to take.

Mr. Tuttle’s entire article can be read at:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

2) But this is not the first time that we have discussed Mr. Cook’s analysis. In one of our blog posts from back on September 18, 2014, we went into more detail of how he got to his conclusions, writing at that time:

“One of the biggest fallacies going around to support the probably faulty theory that humanity’s actions are causing massive global warming and/or climate change is the statistic that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man made, and dangerous. If this stat is true, then why are we even having a conversation about global warming, let’s fix it right away, there cannot be any doubt.

But that is a big if, even if the President has been spouting it off. A recent report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation explained why this is such a bogus number:

• The original 97% claim first appeared in a research paper by Australian global warming advocate John Cook.
• The paper drew its conclusions having allegedly reviewed 12,000 papers on climate change and claimed that the vast majority of them supported the “consensus” on global warming.
• But Cook defined “consensus as having two and only two components: 1) that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas and 2) human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.
• There was no quantitative or benchmark criteria used, just an unspecified extent, hardly a scientific approach or analysis. Thus, under Cook’s definition, even if a scientists conceded there was a less than 1% probability of manmade global warming, that scientist would be considered part of the 97% consensus.
• Keep in mind that John Cook’s Internet home is a global warming advocate website called Skeptical Science so he has a vested interest in global warming propaganda. 
• Unfortunately for Cook, a security lapse at his site in 2012 led to the uncovering of private email exchanges between Cook and his co-conspirators: “It’s essential that the public understands that there’s a scientific consensus on AGW. So [Skeptical Science activists] Jim Powell, Dana [Nucitelli] and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus.”
• This is not science, this is public relations and propaganda since the conclusions were drawn and done before any research into whether there was a consensus was conducted.

And that is how bogus science passes for real science in the world of politics and vested interests."

And Gore and Obama and others like them want to change our economy and our lifestyle, and not for the better based on extremely small and biased sample size surveys done by college students, not experts, and by people that have an answer they want to hit before they do any scientific analysis and study, the complete antithesis of science and the scientific method. Pathetic and despicable and unbelievably deceitful

More analysis and science tomorrow where we continue to prove that being a global warming doubter and a believer in science is really the correct reality today.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now: http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

September, 2014 I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science, Part 2: 97% Is A Bogus Number, Detroit is Not A Global Warming Victim, and More

On a semi-regular basis we have taken an in-depth look at ALL pertinent and relevant global warming/climate change data, statistics, trends, and science under the theme, “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.” It was our feeling and position that the people who believed and supported the theory that humanity’s actions was causing global warming and climate change were not being completely honest in their discussion, 

It seemed that they were cherry picking information to prove their point rather than looking at all of the information available to reach a scientifically sound basis. To make matters worse, their attitudes to towards those of us that were believers in science but were skeptical about the whole global warming thesis to be honest with you just ticked us off. People like Al Gore go about bashing folks like our selves, calling them ignorant of science, racists, homophobes, and other derogatory names just because we want to look at the entire picture, just not a slanted, narrow and quite possibly incorrect view of reality.

Past discussions under this theme in this blog can be accessed by entering “I am a global warming doubter” in the search box above. By reviewing those discussions and posts with an open mind, you will find that the science on man made global warming/climate change is far from settled, contrary to the views of global warming advocates. That conclusion is further verified by the latest research and realities that we started discussing yesterday, will continue today, and probably last for a few more days.

1) NOAA is a Federal government weather entity that tracks all kinds of weather and climate related events and trends. Let’s check with their July, 2014 findings and see if there are any dramatic global warming or climate change events going down:

• The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July, 2014 was 73.3°F, or 0.3°F below the 20th century average.
• This latest July temperature finding puts it near the middle of the 120-year period of record. 
• This was the coolest July for the Lower-48 since 2009. 
• The average maximum (daytime) July temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 85.8°F, 0.9°F below the 20th century average, while the average minimum (nighttime) July temperature was 60.8°F, 0.2°F above the 20th century average.
• Below-average temperatures stretched from the Midwest, through the Mississippi River Valley, and into parts of the Southeast, where 13 states had one of their 10 coolest Julys on record. 
• Arkansas and Indiana each had their coolest July on record. 
• The Arkansas average temperature was 75.7°F, 4.6°F below the 20th century average and dipping below the previous record cold July that occurred in 1967. 
• The Indiana average temperature was 69.2°F, 5.3°F below the 20th century average, slightly cooler than the previous record cold July of 2009. 
• Although most corn producing areas in the Midwest have experienced excellent growing conditions during 2014, in northern areas, from North Dakota to Michigan, a cool and wet 2014 growing season might cause corn crops to not reach full maturation before harvest.
• There were more than twice as many record cool temperatures during July (5,508) than record warm temperatures (2,605), with most of the cool temperature records (3,333) being cool daytime temperatures and most of the warm temperature records (1,882) being warm nighttime temperatures.
• Above-average temperatures were observed from the Intermountain West to the Pacific Coast. 
• Six states had one of their 10 warmest Julys on record, but no state was record warm for the month. The above-average temperatures, combined with long-term dryness, created ideal wildfire conditions across the West, where numerous large wildfires charred hundreds of thousands of acres during July.
• Much of Alaska was warmer than average during July, especially along the western Gulf of Alaska coast and the Alaska Peninsula. 
• The July national precipitation total was 2.55 inches, 0.23 inch below the 20th century average, marking the 26th driest July on record.

Some colder temps, some, but fewer warmer temps, outstanding growing conditions in the Midwest, hardly the catastrophic weather and climate predictions global warming people like Al Gore have been predicting incorrectly for years and year. 

2) One of the biggest fallacies going around to support the probably faulty theory that humanity’s actions are causing massive global warming and/or climate change is the statistic that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man made, and dangerous. If this stat is true, than why are we even having a conversation about global warming, let’s fix it right away, there cannot be any doubt.

But that is a big if, even if the President has been spouting it off. A recent report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation explained why this is such a bogus number:

• The original 97% claim first appeared in a research paper by Australian global warming advocate John Cook.
• The paper drew its conclusions having allegedly reviewed 12,000 papers on climate change and claimed that the vast majority of them supported the “consensus” on global warming.
• But Cook defined “consensus as having two and only two components: 1) that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas and 2) human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.
• There was no quantitative or benchmark criteria used, just an unspecified extent, hardly a scientific approach or analysis. Thus, under Cook’s definition, even if a scientists conceded there was a lless than 1% probability of man made global warming, that scientist would be considered part of the 97% consensus.
• Keep in mind that John Cook’s internet home is a global warming advocate website called Skeptical Science so he has a vested interest in global warming propaganda. 
• Unfortunately for Cook, a security lapse at his site in 2012 led to the uncovering of private email exchanges between Cook and his co-conspirators: “It’s essential that the public understands that there’s a scientific consensus on AGW. So [Skeptical Science activists] Jim Powell, Dana [Nucitelli] and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus.”
• This is not science, this is public relations and propaganda since the conclusions were drawn and done before any research into whether there was a consensus was conducted.

And that is how bogus science passes for real science in the world of politics and vested interests. For a more detailed rebuttal of Cook’s 97% please visit:

http://youngcons.com/obamas-97-of-scientists-agree-climate-change-is-real-man-made-and-dangerous-lie-just-got-demolished/#ixzz3Crdacxv9

3) Detroit, Michigan recently suffered through some really heavy rainfall, rainfall that overwhelmed the city’s sewer systems with flooding. It did not take long for a local government bureaucrat, Detorit Water Commissioner Jim Nash, to blame the heavy rains on man made global warming/climate change: “The system [Detroit’s sewer system] worked exactly like it was supposed to, but we’re seeing these rain events that used to be unusual but just aren’t anymore. This is going to become more normal and we need to understand that ‘100-year storm’ is an outdated term.”

Oh, wait. A Federal government agency, NOAA, tracks severe rainfall events by frequency. They have not come across any major spikes in rainfall that would back up this commissioner’s views:

Rather than global warming, about a more logical cause of Detroit’s flooding: 

• In 1950, the city had 1.8 million residents. 
• It has fewer than 800,000 today. Detroit built municipal infrastructure to operate on a scale that would support 1.8 million people. 
• That large of an infrastructure costs more than 800,000 residents can possibly pay for to maintain, especially when the unemployment rate is about 20% and a third of the city’s residents live in poverty. 
• City storm drain systems need to be cleaned regularly so that clogs do not develop and back up the sewers.
• And that is what happened in Detroit when the heavy rains came. Detroit can no longer afford to provide adequate schools, police, sanitation, and other services including clean and operable sewer systems. Global warming did not cause the Detroit floods, the collapse of the Detroit municipal government caused the Detroit flooding.

We have to get away from this easy explanation of every weather related disaster, I.e. not everything in nature is caused by man made global warming or climate change. Sometimes it is caused by mankind’s failures and other times it is caused because mother Nature has a sick sense of humor.

That will do it for today’s lessons in global warming doubting, more lessons to follow tomorrow.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now: http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w