Pro Patria

A [sometimes] Logical View of the Illogical

20 Comments »

1. 

   lofgray said,

   April 22, 2008 at 3:07 pm

   That TIME would do what they did is just unbelievable. Thank you for you service and stay vocal. We need to let our leaders know that the environ-mentalists are not the only ones that vote.

2. 

   Holly said,

   April 22, 2008 at 7:29 pm

   Ick. I had to google it to see what it was. I can’t believe they’d think that was okay. Obviously noone at TIME has any grandparents alive. If so and they had mentioned this casually within their presence, they would have been slapped so hard their heads would have flown off.

3. 

   Mr Pink Eyes said,

   April 22, 2008 at 8:11 pm

   While this is offensive to most of us you have to remember where the left is coming from. They now claim that global warming is the greatest threat to our way of life and national security, more so than terrorism. So from their perspective the analogy holds water.
   Of course, I find this repulsive, and a disservice to all those that have served.You are correct, this is a scam. I have proposed the global warming truther movement

4. 

   Mr Pink Eyes said,

   April 22, 2008 at 8:13 pm

   I apologize, I seem to have screwed up that link.

5. 

   micky said,

   April 22, 2008 at 9:01 pm

   We should all go to the Time Warner builiding and piss on every tree out front and the crap on the sidewalk and tell em ” here ! this is for the earth!”

   Yea, I know I’m a little deep sometimes in my case I would have to bag up my turd and mail it.
   We also get the same inundation on the news here in Hawaii. The earth day festival was at the Uof Hawaii and last nights broadcast devoted 15 minutes to the subject.
   KHON is an NBC affiliate which we all should know is owned by General Electric. So duh?
   Buy my light bulbs, by my solar heating sytems and my earth friendly appliances.
   What a bunch of shit.
   Alternative energy sources should be sold on the premise that we need to get away from depending on the Arabs and Chavez. These are the people that are hurting us more right now than any fucking climate change will for decades. It should not be sold on the false premise of the sky falling.
   Ethanol (fucking ethanol) and oil speculaters are raisng the price of gas so high we cant fill our bellys or our tanks without taking out a freaking loan.
   And last but not least. Having our guys in Iwo Jima raising a tree in the name of a bullshit scenario is pretty fuckin cheap
   What they wont tell you is that the paper that shit was printed on comes from pulpwood trees, not just any fucking tree. Pulpwood is farmed and harvested yearly and is highly renewable, and that recycling paper is more costly and that the ink sludge retained in the recycling process is more toxic to the environment than new paper. Plus recycled paper is a lot more expensive to produce and usually gets left on the shelf and eventually tossed. That cost gets passed on to us.
   By up the copys and take them to your nearest earth festival and burn them.
   And if they bitch about the carbon deposits from that, tell them about the plant in Sweden that burns scrap wood for electricity and claims it has no carbon emissions

   http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=2675

6. 

   Angel said,

   April 22, 2008 at 9:08 pm

   This assault on my freedom and my way of life was bad enough, but now to assault and insult us like TIME has done this month… It’s one step too far…could not agree more my friend!
   sorry..just commented on a tag I noticed from a while back!

7. 

   ChenZhen said,

   April 22, 2008 at 11:20 pm

   I think environmentalism can be viewed on a spectrum, and everyone falls somewhere on it.

   Say what you want about global warming, but smog, air pollution, groundwater contamination, acid rain, waste disposal, etc. are very real problems that are only going to become more problematic as global population and industrialization increases. In that context, I think people should be able to have a rational debate on where your freedom ends and the air I breathe begins, ’cause there’s plenty of reasons to believe that unchecked, unbridled industrialism would render portions of the planet uninhabitable if taken to the extreme, so there is some virtue, I think, in having a force that pushes against it in some fashion.

   I’d like to hope that we, as humans and Americans, can have that debate without “foot up their ass” rhetoric, especially on Earth Day.

8. 

   alaskanspawn said,

   April 23, 2008 at 7:28 am

   So I just happen to be in PA this week at a “think tank” conference. If you are curious about this small group look here http://thei2i.org/Welcome.html

   So as we were having a beer after a long day of geek talk the subject of global warming came up. I am with you guys and believe this whole thing stinks of personal agenda and political motives. It’s the worst scam in recent history. Three of the guys I was with were somewhat sitting on the fence as to whether or not this whole thing was man-made or not. Needless to say I had to set them straight. It’s so completely obvious to me without even looking at the numbers that this warming trend is natural and completely unstoppable. It makes me sick to watch the media pushing this agenda blindly and without pause.

   Anyway, I mentioned I was in PA this week because the democratic primary was here last night. What a madhouse! This place was packed with a bunch of political loonies. Pretty interesting to see. Of course some of the discussion was political and ended up with global warming. I think I won the debate so I’m changing the world 1 geek at a time :-).

9. 

   alaskanspawn said,

   April 23, 2008 at 7:39 am

   Actually, to tell you the truth, with the cold we’ve been experiencing here and around the world a little global warming would be nice. I just bought a new motorcycle and I’d like to be able to ride it without my winter gear :-).

10. 

    micky2 said,

    April 23, 2008 at 9:07 am

    Chen Zen.
    What most people dont realize is that our air is actually getting cleaner and is cleaner than it was 30 years ago.
    The idea that waste disposal is a problem is a myth.
    And as far as clean water goes the run off from uneccessary reycling such as paper and other replenishable items along with pesticides from production of ethanol would be where the concern for our water lies.
    If I may I will quote a good friend of mine ( The Antisocialist ) from a lively debate we had on the subject a few months ago, it should clear up a few miconceptions and myths.
    ————————————————————–
    “Pulpwood is specifically grown for paper, and that is why this notion that forests are “mowed down” to produce paper is a complete fiction. It’s more environmental mythology. The only places where forests are mowed down to produce paper are in non-developed countries, which is exactly the type of places that environmentalism wishes to force us all into.

    Mandatory recycling, moreover, as its very name implies, ignores the law of supply and demand. That is why so much recycled paper is ultimately landfilled. When, for instance, New Jersey “passed legislation that required every community in the state to recycle, the recycling rate for newspapers jumped from 50 percent to 62 percent. This, in turn, created such a glut that the price of newsprint fell $45 per ton to minus $25 per ton!” (Facts not Fear.) You read that correctly: recyclers had to pay $25 per ton for someone to haul the newspapers away.

    In Europe, where the recycling craze has really run amok, the German government (e.g.) required businesses to take back from customers and recycle all forms of packaging, including bottles, cans, containers, cartons, and sacks. In no time, the (nonprofit) company that collects and sorts the items was $412 million in debt, and the government admitted that tons and tons of the material would be landfilled anyway, because there wasn’t enough demand for that kind of supply.

    As Doctor William Rathje (of the University of Arizona, and arguably the world’s foremost scientist on rubbish) points out in his excellent book Rubbish, “paper accounts for 40 percent or more of landfill volume. There simply isn’t a market for this amount of recycled newspaper. Nor are enough mills to process all the paper that could be collected. In addition, de-inking newspaper, which is necessary in order to recycle it, creates a potentially toxic sludge, which sludge, toxic or not, must somewhere be landfilled” (William Rathje, Rubbish).

    But there’s more: As Lynn Scarlett of the Reason Foundation points out, environmental laws anent recycling could conveivably “eliminate the one-pound coffee ‘brick-packs’ you now find in retail stores. These packages hold the same amount of coffee as metal cans, but weigh less than one-third of traditional metal cans, and they take up little space. Recycled-content laws would force the use of cans instead.”

    But there’s more, much more: “There is no shortage of landfill space, not remotely. All the trash produced by the United States for the next one thousand years could fit into a landfill forty-four miles square by 120 feet deep—one tenth of 1 percent of all this country’s entire land area.” (“A Consumer’s Guide to Environmental Myths and Realities,” Policy Report #99, National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, TX, September 1991, 3, quoting Clark Wiseman of Gonzaga University.)

    But there’s more, much more: Transporting recyclables to processing plants requires separate collection trucks, and producing the finished goods consumes energy and causes pollution, just as production of paper from wood does. (”In Los Angels, recycling laws meant that instead of four hundred garbage the city needed 800, and LA already has an air pollution problem” Facts not Fear.) Also, the trees that will allegedly be “saved” are, as intimated earlier, those that are planted specifically to make a pulpwood paper. “More recycling reduces the incentive to maintain and plant such tree farms” (ibid). As Doctor Clark Wiseman again wisely points out, “if paper recycling reaches 40 percent (it is about 30 percent right now), demand for paper from trees would fall by about 7 percent, and owners will be forced to convert their land for other uses than tree growing.” Added to which, because recycling so often requires more labor and more energy to produce, recycled products are often more expensive.

    When recycling makes sense—and it does with things such as scrap steel and aluminum cans—it makes sense not because of resource scarcity, which is not a problem, nor because extracting the resources will irreparably harm the environment (it won’t), but because it is economically sound to do so. Businesses in free market countries exist to recycle these products. And they’ve existed for many, many decades, long before the environmental craze swept across the country like a plague. It’s one of the millions of examples of how free-markets take care of themselves. Furthermore, no one, in these instance, is forced to save recyclables, or to take them away.

    Force is the opposite of freedom. Coercion, be it direct or indirect, is the only way to violate freedom.

    Coercion is what environmentalism espouses.

    One other very crucial factor you must never forget, Mr. McJones: nothing is ever recycled until it is sorted, collected, re-manufactured, and, most important of all, resold. If a re-manufactured product sits on the shelf until it is taken down and thrown away - as so much of these products are - it is not recycled. On the contrary, it’s been a far greater and far more costly waste than if it had just been landfilled to begin with.

    That is where your government intervention gets you. For starters.

    But that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

    Moving on to your wild assertion that there are different “styles” or “varieties” of capitalism, be it lunatic-fringe style, or moderate style: this is an absurd and demonstrably false notion. Capitalism, by its very definition, means free trade. That is all. That’s what capitalism is. It means that government stays out of commerce and industry, just as government stays out of religion, and for the exact same reasons. There is no middle ground to that: it’s either capitalistic, or its opposite: interventionist.

    Which means mercantilist.

    Which means protectionist.

    “Capitalism is the economic manifestation of freedom” (Fredrick Bastiat).

    “Capitalism is individual rights applied to the science of production and exchange” (George Reisman).

    Capitalism, by definition, is “a network of free voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at” (Capitalism Versus Statism, Murray N. Rothbard).

    The crux of capitalism, and thus freedom, is private property.

    The only alternative to private property is communal ownership or governmental ownership, which is precisely what environmentalism advocates.

    Communal ownership and government ownership are also called socialism. That, by definition, is what socialism is.

    As a political philosophy, environmentalism is in every significant way indistinguishable from socialism. Indeed, as many commentators have noted, such as Patrick Moore, one of the cofounders of Green Peace, “environmentalism is repackaged Marxism.”

    Socialism, as you presumably know, at least implicitly, is the opposite of capitalism.

    Thus, if there is government intervention, it is, to that extent, not capitalism.

    Regarding your own espousal of the precautionary principle, it’s not only anti-freedom — it’s deadly and dangerous, as the DDT fiasco more than demonstrates, to the tune of ten million and counting, or the Alar fiasco.

    As the French heat-wave deaths also demonstrate. To wit:

    The bulk of the victims—many of them elderly—died during the height of the heat wave, which brought suffocating temperatures of up to 104 degrees in a country where air conditioning is rare.”This prompts an obvious question: Why is air conditioning so rare in a technologically sophisticated country like France?In an interview, Michaels told me that a major reason is the impact of environmentalism on government energy policy. To address the alleged threat of global warming, France, along with the rest of the European Union, has imposed steep energy taxes in order to reduce energy consumption. As a result, Michaels explained, energy costs to consumers in France are about 25 percent higher than to consumers in the United States. At the same time, average incomes in France are considerably lower than those in America, which, in relative terms, makes electricity there all the more expensive.

    Sure enough, the high energy taxes have worked exactly as the environmentalists planned: they have reduced energy consumption. Seeking ways to cut their electric bills, French citizens realized that air conditioners consume more energy than almost any other household appliance. For the poor and the elderly, especially, air conditioning simply became unaffordable. So, by the millions, they decided to forgo the amenity that environmental taxes made so expensive. Air conditioning, so universal in America, became in France an indulgence of the well-to-do. As Chantal de Singly, director of the Saint-Antoine hospital in Paris, put it in Le Monde (August 19, 2003), the heat wave revealed two classes of French citizens: “the France of the air conditioned versus the France of the overheated.”
    So, to address the purely hypothetical risks of possible future global temperature increases that might average a few piddling degrees, the greens imposed energy taxes that made it impossible for many of its most vulnerable citizens to protect themselves against the foreseeable and preventable impact of a summer heat wave.
    However, in the green campaign against energy consumption, the fatalities caused by French environmentalists do not begin to rival those caused by their American blood brothers (Robert Bindinitto, “Death by Environmentalism”).

    The Sun Also Sets
    By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore’s mythical “consensus.” Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Related Topics: Global Warming

    ——————————————————————————–

    Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

    To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

    And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming.

    Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada’s National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

    Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

    Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

    This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

    Tapping reports no change in the sun’s magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

    Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a “stethoscope for the sun.” But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

    In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun’s emissions more rapidly and accurately.

    As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth’s climate over time has been the sun.

    For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth’s temperature over the last 100 years.

    R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada’s Carleton University, says that “CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.”

    Rather, he says, “I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet.”

    Patterson, sharing Tapping’s concern, says: “Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth.”

    “Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again,” Patterson says. “If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than ‘global warming’ would have had.”

    In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming “community” — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by “dramatic changes” in temperatures.

    A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

    “The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100,” according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

    The study says that “try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures.”

    The study concludes that if you shut down all the world’s power plants and factories, “there would not be much effect on temperatures.”

    But if the sun shuts down, we’ve got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that’s hanging in the balance.”
    ————————————————————–

    There is no “scientific consensus” on global warming
    Climate is always changing – with or without man
    The Medieval Warm Period was significantly warmer than temperatures today – and was a golden age for agriculture, innovation, and lifespan
    Most of Antarctica is actually getting colder
    Hurricanes are not getting worse – our tendency to build houses in their path is getting greater
    Many big businesses lobby for global warming policies that will increase their profits – and our costs
    The media only recently abandoned the “global cooling” scare
    The real agenda behind the “global warming” scare? A massive expansion of government control over the economy and our lives

    This game has been going on since I was a hippie in the 60s and 70s and we were convinced that you were helping the enviroment if you bought those sandals that had the soles that were made from old tires.
    It became as big as the smiley that said ” have a nice day”
    Well, those sandals still had to get thrown out at some point also.I remember when the “is it safe to drink the water?” scare happened. Consequently millions of people started buying bottled water. Nobody has died from tap water yet. And the bottled water business turned into a billion dollar industry.
    A couple months ago it was all over the news. The two top selling waters are nothing but tap water.
    I can buy my own filter and bottle it myself and cast away my worries about bad water, and dont have to worry about the trash impact on the earth. ( Which is totally blown out of proportion)
    Will we see that happen? Probably not. Because the corporations know that they can scare us into buying anything, for whatever convuluted reason they come up with.
    I told all those people then that they were fools and I was right.

    Scientist who dont agree with the the mass hysteria on this subject thats being driven by the liberal media are subjected to loosin funding for not jumping on the wagon.
    In an op-ed piece http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 written soon after the release of An Inconvenient Truth (by Nobel-Prize winner Yassar — oops, Albert Gore) the distinguished climate scientist Richard Lindzen of MIT had this to say:
    The very commonplace — indeed, cliche — environmental tactic on any dissenting scientist these days is not to address the actual science. That would be too much like rational discourse. It is, rather, to lambaste the source of funding.

    Well, turnabout is fair play.

    As Mr. Lindzen notes in the above-quoted passage, government-employed, government-funded scientists depend entirely upon politicians for their funding. Science, then, which by definition is supposed to be an objective discipline, is instantly politicized. Ultimately, the money comes from the taxpayers. Science becomes a thing of consensus.

    So… government-funding makes science political and non-objective.

    That is why, instead of rational debate and scientific inquiry, we’re subject to the endless lobby campaigns, the endless invectives, the endless personal smears against any scientist who dares to do her job, also known as questioning and investigating — and that is why there is this authoritarian cry we now hear: “Silence! The debate is over.”

11. 

    alaskanspawn said,

    April 23, 2008 at 9:43 am

    Damn Mickey! nuff said

12. 

    micky2 said,

    April 23, 2008 at 11:09 am

    Sorry guys.
    Just figured I’d cut to the chase

13. 

    in2thefray said,

    April 23, 2008 at 11:31 am

    I spent a couple of minutes looking over Time archives of stories reported on Iwo Jima back in 1945. Too bad the editors of today don’t read their own history. On a personal note I’ll add that I just came back from D.C. and went to the memorial.

    I was moved by how much the memorial was able to attract,amuse and move people. I guess what I’m saying is that the event,the photo and the statue are something special and deserves better than being commercialized.

    On that last note I’d like to preempt those that would say the imagery is already a tool of commercialism and/or propaganda. Those that did the bleeding,sweating and dying are the better judges of that so hands off.

14. 

    in2thefray said,

    April 23, 2008 at 11:33 am

    @ CZ
    

    I’d like to hope that we, as humans and Americans, can have that debate without “foot up their ass” rhetoric, especially on Earth Day.

    You do see where the image manipulation is a kick in another anatomical region though-right ??

15. 

    ChenZhen said,

    April 23, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    micky2-

    What most people dont realize is that our air is actually getting cleaner and is cleaner than it was 30 years ago.

    If that’s true, what led to that turnaround?

    Look, all I’m saying is if you don’t care in the least what enters your air, food, and drinking water through smokestacks, car exausts, drainage pipes, sewage and waste, etc. then congratulations, you’re not an environmentalist.

    If you think that maybe it’s a good idea that someone pays attention to that kind of thing, well, then you are.

    in2thefray-

    You do see where the image manipulation is a kick in another anatomical region though-right ??

    Not really, no.

16. 

    angie said,

    April 23, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    That Time cover should be thrown where the sun don’t shine..I certainly hope they get lots of protests. It is a huge disservice to our fathers and grandfathers who fought in that war or any war since!

    Global warming..is China gonna clean up it’s act? don’t think so..besides there are as many saying ‘not true’ as there are promoting it.

    Gore is running a huge campaign this next year to the tune of 300 mil to run commercials during prime time popular TV shows…Did a post on it, imagine our children will be shaming us for using plastic and you know the song! Our children are hearing about it in school and now they are taking it to prime time gang! Let’s face it..we are not Politically Correct! Whoo Hoo!

17. 

    micky2 said,

    April 24, 2008 at 1:02 am

    Surprise !
    Rice rationing at Sams Club.
    And shortages world wide

18. 

    micky2 said,

    April 24, 2008 at 10:19 pm

    Zen.
    If you take into cosideration how many cars were on the road the vs today along with all the emission standards we have now as opposed to then along with the amount of cars on the road today it is indeed fact.

    http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/acd7785cfa152e72852573c500672a8e!OpenDocument
    “Washoe County carbon monoxide conditions have improved significantly in the past 30 years thanks to the federal motor vehicle control program, State vehicle inspection and maintenance program, local oxygenated gasoline program, and local residential wood-burning regulations. The Truckee Meadows area has not violated the federal carbon monoxide standard in the last 13 years.”

    http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/5d5735eb8a2d371f85257169005e26d2!OpenDocument
    “Air quality in the New York City area has improved and, at the request of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take it off the list of areas with carbon monoxide problems. In 1978, the area, which included the five boroughs and Westchester and Nassau Counties, was designated as a “non-attainment area” for carbon monoxide because air monitors measured violations of EPA’s health-based standard for this pollutant. Carbon monoxide comes from any combustion process, but in the New York metropolitan region, the main source is motor vehicles. Clean Air Act requirements such as the use of cleaner fuel and better emissions controls on cars and trucks are credited with the dramatic drop in carbon monoxide levels

    This is par for the course in most of the country.
    Of course I care about my air, dont be ridiculous.
    But dont scare me into buying a bunch of shit I dont need

19. 

    micky2 said,

    April 24, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    ZEN,
    of course I care about my air, dont be ridiculous.
    Just dont sell me a bunch of shit I dont need with the pretense that our air is getting worse.
    We should be told to keep up the good work instead.

    Ita all right here.

    http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/5d5735eb8a2d371f85257169005e26d2!OpenDocument.

20. 

    micky2 said,

    April 24, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    ZEN,
    of course I care about my air, dont be ridiculous.
    Just dont sell me a bunch of shit I dont need with the pretense that our air is getting worse.
    We should be told to keep up the good work instead.

    Ita all right here.

    ZEN,
    of course I care about my air, dont be ridiculous.
    Just dont sell me a bunch of shit I dont need with the pretense that our air is getting worse.
    We should be told to keep up the good work instead.

    Ita all right here.

    http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/5d5735eb8a2d371f85257169005e26d2!OpenDocument.

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

URI

• 

  Quote of the Moment

  "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
  --Thomas Jefferson

  ---

• Info and Addenda

  • About Me
    • My 9/11 Story
  • Blogroll
  • Feedback & Communiqués
  • Resources
  • The Humidor

• Top Rants

  • McCain's Military Career
  • Beyond Reason Part One: Beslan
  • Gangs: Defining new domestic terrorism
  • Debunking oil profits and gas station boycott myths
  • Smoke 'em if you got 'em... Minnesota gets set to go smoke free

• Search:

• Take Action

  

  

  
  

  Show your love of Capitalism at John Galt Gifts

  What I'm Reading Now:
  An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems

  Pro Patria's Required Reading

• Feeds and Distribution

  ---

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

• Tidbits

  ---

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  ---

  

  Pro Patria is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
  Based on a work at propatriablog.org.

  ---

• Numbers

  • 68,973 Visits Since February 2007

Design by Beccary · Blog at WordPress.com.