July 25, 2017

In Light of Latest Climate Scandal, Congress Asked to Review EPA Grants

Congress Asked to Hold Oversight Hearings to Review Possibly Politicized EPA Grants

Oversight Hearing Should Review Objectivity of Grant Recipients, Goals and Appropriate Funding Level

FOIA Requests Being Filed

Washington, D.C. – The National Center for Public Policy Research is today calling on Congress to hold a series of oversight hearings over possibly-politicized grants made by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The National Center’s general counsel, Justin Danhof, has also filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking additional details about several of those grants totaling nearly a half million dollars, made to the Pacific Institute in California.

The president of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick, has this week confessed to misappropriating the identity of another individual in order to obtain confidential documents from a rival think-tank, one that has reached different conclusions than has the Pacific Institute on the causes and significance of global warming.

Gleick said in a statement that he did so because of “frustration” over differences between persons and institutions within the global warming debate.

“The Pacific Institute receives federal grants related to science research while participating ardently in public advocacy on science-related issues,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “While it is possible to be objective during research while simultaneously conducting public advocacy, it is difficult. It most likely is especially difficult when a research institute’s CEO is so overcome with the passion of his convictions that he cannot restrain himself emotionally while in pursuit of his advocacy goals.”

Ridenour continued: “In 2006, in response to another controversy related to maintenance of high objective standards in climate science research, the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations conducted hearings about the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph of Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, which had been used by the United Nations’ IPCC for advocacy purposes. The hearing, predictably, did not settle the global warming issue but it did provide lawmakers and the public with the opportunity to hear from prominent climate scientists and statisticians with a variety of viewpoints. It was a form of peer-review, necessary in our view because the traditional peer-review process within science is insufficiently rigorous, particularly when it comes to the highly-controversial issue of global warming, over which very many billions of dollars are at stake.”

The 2006 hearing also reminded scientists and other professionals of the importance of maintaining the highest standards of objectivity.

The oversight hearings the National Center now recommends would have three purposes. 1) To review the grants made during the last two Administrations to make certain sufficient standards of objectivity are in place; to 2) obtain the views of respected scientists as to whether the EPA grant program is focusing its resources in the most promising areas of research with an eye toward maximizing public benefit; and 3) to examine the question of whether the grant program, at a time of 15 trillion-dollar federal government debts, is at an appropriate spending level.

“While Congress itself should not be deciding every EPA grant,” added Ridenour, “Given the amount of dollars involved and the potential for abuse, it makes sense for Congress to call eminent scientists before it every few years to obtain their views on whether these grants are sufficiently advancing the public interest.”

The National Center recommends that grants from the Obama and Bush Administrations be equally evaluated so as to eliminate any suspicion that Congress’s legitimate oversight function is being used for partisan purposes. The evaluation should not be limited to grants made on issues related to global warming.

The National Center has so far filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the EPA related only to grants to the Pacific Institute, it expects to file additional FOIA requests in the coming days.

Share

Santorum: Climate Science is Political Science

*Editor’s Note* The posting of videos or snippets of information does not indicate in any way a political endorsement by me or anyone affiliated with this web site.

Share

Two Psychotic Actions Don’t Equal Rational Justice

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a fringe, psychotic group that uses fraud and other unethical means to raise money to pay overblown salaries and fund programs not geared to saving or protecting animals, attempted to file a lawsuit on behalf of 5 California whales demanding the same constitutional rights as humans. PETA vs. Sea World was subsequently thrown out of court because the judge ruled animals don’t have the same rights as people.

As perverse as this kind of behavior is, it is not a position shared only by whacked-out PETA members. Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s pick to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has stated publicly that he believes lawsuits should be brought on behalf of animals.

The United Nations and most animal rights groups fully support the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights which claims that animals and humans all share in the same rights.

Understandably a psychotic behavior on the part of those who support such rights equity with animals, we now learn that the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is considering filing a lawsuit against PETA that would, “represent the 25,000-plus dogs and cats that PETA has killed since 1998 whose “rights” have been violated under the 5th and 8th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution”.

While the notion in and of itself is totally asinine, those who understand the differences between rights for humans and welfare for animals, get their point. I am only assuming the announcement of consideration to sue is for the purpose of making a statement and not actually an attempt at using two wrongs to somehow come up with anything that resembles truth.

Similar to the actions of the Humane Society of the United States, these two groups solicit money from anyone from small individual donors to very wealthy celebrities. In 2009 Carrie Underwood gave $200,000 to HSUS.

Unfortunately for all the donors, they are not made aware of the fact of the tens of thousands of family pets these two groups routinely euthanize, sometimes without giving any effort to find them homes.

It is very important for individuals and organizations like the Center for Consumer Freedom to recognize and expose fraud and hypocrisy as is the case here with PETA. What is not acceptable is to use PETA’s own crack-brained ideas to allow animals to have legal representation of any kind in our courts.

We get your point. Now let’s move on.

Tom Remington

Share

Obama Giving Away Our Sovereignty While the Media Stifles Any News About It

*Editor’s Note* The following is a press releases issued by the White House. I think it safe to say that very few Americans know anything about “Beyond the Border”. Disguised as a border security, economic enhancement program, anyone giving this any considerable thought at all will realize the very serious problems this agreement poses.

While Canada may be our close friends, the White House is undergoing talks with Mexico for a similar agreement. Seriously? Do we really want Mexican authorities enforcing international law agreements worked out by each country’s leaders? What is happening to our own laws and our own rights?

The most obvious, but yet not being considered, is not only loss of national sovereignty but the total destruction and disregard for state’s sovereignty, i.e. those along our borders.

And what rights is President Obama giving away that we may never see until some trumped up “emergency” declaration is declared due to who knows what? And why doesn’t the legislatures of all countries get to participate in this scheme?

In addition, with the passage of the National Defense Re-authorization Act, we know the president and our military have unprecedented authority to arrest and detain anyone, citizen or not, without due process, simply by fitting the description of the Government’s “terrorist” suspect.

Tell me this isn’t all part of a rights and property grab by Obama and his regime. It was only about 5 months ago when we learned about the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, that would give HS power over all Federal lands within 100 miles of our borders. Before you react, consider that for a moment and then ask why would Homeland Security stop at Federal Lands?

Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg says the authorization is no big deal. It just grants Homeland Security the same authority over state and private lands in those areas it now has. What’s the big deal? Most people, even those who may be aware of this Act, don’t know “borders” also include maritime borders, i.e. our thousands of miles of coastlines.

Environmentalists have their undies in a bunch because the Act gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to suspend some of their own controlling environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

While the President and our own Congress cede away all our rights, private property and sovereignty at all levels, the general public is being intentionally denied easy access to any of this information.

The Press Release follows:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 04, 2011
Declaration by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper of Canada – Beyond the Border

Beyond the Border:
A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness

The United States and Canada are staunch allies, vital economic partners, and steadfast friends. We share common values, deep links among our citizens, and deeply rooted ties. The extensive mobility of people, goods, capital, and information between our two countries has helped ensure that our societies remain open, democratic, and prosperous.

To preserve and extend the benefits our close relationship has helped bring to Americans and Canadians alike, we intend to pursue a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people, goods, and services between our two countries. We intend to do so in partnership, and in ways that support economic competitiveness, job creation, and prosperity.

We have advanced our prosperity through the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Over $250 billion of direct investment by each country in the other, and bilateral trade of more than half-a-trillion dollars a year in goods and services create and sustain millions of jobs in both our countries. At the U.S.-Canada border, nearly one million dollars in goods and services cross every minute, as well as 300,000 people every day, who cross for business, pleasure, or to maintain family ties.

The United States and Canada share a long history of cooperation in defending our values and freedoms. We stand together to confront threats to our collective security as partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We work shoulder-to-shoulder in the defense of both our nations through the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

We share responsibility for the safety, security, and resilience of the United States and of Canada in an increasingly integrated and globalized world. We intend to address security threats at the earliest point possible in a manner that respects privacy, civil liberties, and human rights.

I. Principles

We intend to work together in cooperation and partnership to develop, implement, manage, and monitor security initiatives, standards, and practices to fulfill our vision. We recognize that our efforts should accelerate job creation and economic growth through trade facilitation at our borders and contribute directly to the economic security and well-being of both the United States and Canada.

We intend to strengthen our resilience – our ability to mitigate, respond to, and recover from disruptions. Success depends on readiness at all levels of our governments, within our communities, and among private sector owners and operators of our infrastructure, systems, and networks. We rely on secure communications and transportation networks, including our civil aviation system, and we intend to work together to make them resilient enough to continue operating in the face of a natural disaster or attack.

We expect to use a risk management approach where compatible, interoperable, and – where possible – joint measures and technology should proportionately and effectively address the threats we share. Effective risk management should enable us to accelerate legitimate flows of people and goods into the United States and Canada and across our common border, while enhancing the physical security and economic competitiveness of our countries.

We build on the efforts of many partners – from police and other emergency workers to our armed forces – who continue to safeguard us from the complex threats we face.

We also recognize that cooperation across air, land, and maritime domains, as well as in space and cyberspace, our enduring bi-national defense relationship, and military support for civilian authorities engaged in disaster response efforts and critical infrastructure protection, have all contributed significantly to the security of our populations.

We recognize that greater sharing of information will strengthen our ability to achieve the goals of this vision.

We intend to work together to engage with all levels of government and with communities, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector, as well as with our citizens, on innovative approaches to security and competitiveness.

We value and respect our separate constitutional and legal frameworks that protect privacy, civil liberties, and human rights and provide for appropriate recourse and redress.

We recognize the sovereign right of each country to act independently in its own interest and in accordance with its laws.

We expect to work together with third countries and with international organizations, and intend to facilitate security sector reform and capacity building around the globe, to enhance standards that contribute to our overall security.

Key Areas of Cooperation

Addressing Threats Early

Collaborating to address threats before they reach our shores, we expect to develop a common understanding of the threat environment through improved intelligence and information sharing, as well as joint threat assessments to support informed risk management decisions.

We intend to develop an integrated strategy that would enable us to meet the threats and hazards that both our nations face, including natural disasters and man-made threats, including terrorism.

We expect to continue strengthening our health security partnership, through existing mechanisms for cooperation on health emergencies, and by further enhancing our collective preparedness and response capacity to a range of health security threats, including influenza pandemics.

We intend to work together to uncover and disrupt threats that endanger the security of both the United States and Canada and to establish those agreements or policies necessary to ensure timely sharing of information for combined efforts to counter the threats. We intend to ensure we have the ability to support one another as we prepare for, withstand, and rapidly recover from disruptions. We intend to make the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Emergency Management Cooperation, updated in 2008, a cornerstone of these efforts.

To increase security, counter fraud, and improve efficiency, we intend to work together to establish and verify the identities of travelers and conduct screening at the earliest possible opportunity. We intend to work toward common technical standards for the collection, transmission, and matching of biometrics that enable the sharing of information on travelers in real time. This collaboration should facilitate combined United States and Canadian screening efforts and strengthen methods of threat notification.

In order to promote mobility between our two countries, we expect to work towards an integrated United States-Canada entry-exit system, including work towards the exchange of relevant entry information in the land environment so that documented entry into one country serves to verify exit from the other country.

We intend to cooperate to identify, prevent, and counter violent extremism in our two countries. By working cooperatively on research, sharing best practices, and emphasizing community-based and community-driven efforts, we will have a better understanding of this threat and an increased ability to address it effectively.

We intend to formulate jointly United States-Canada privacy protection principles that should inform and guide our work in relation to facilities, operations, programs, and other initiatives contemplated by this Declaration.

We intend to work together to promote the principles of human rights, privacy, and civil liberties as essential to the rule of law and effective management of our perimeter.

Trade Facilitation, Economic Growth, and Jobs

We intend to pursue creative and effective solutions to manage the flow of traffic between the United States and Canada. We will focus investment in modern infrastructure and technology at our busiest land ports of entry, which are essential to our economic well-being.

We will strive to ensure that our border crossings have the capacity to support the volume of commercial and passenger traffic inherent to economic growth and job creation on both sides of the border.

To enhance our risk management practices, we intend to continue planning together, organizing bi-national port of entry committees to coordinate planning and funding, building, expanding or modernizing shared border management facilities and border infrastructure where appropriate, and using information technology solutions.

We intend to look for opportunities to integrate our efforts and where practicable, to work together to develop joint facilities and programs – within and beyond the United States and Canada – to increase efficiency and effectiveness for both security and trade.

We aim to build on the success of current joint programs by expanding trusted traveler and trader programs, harmonizing existing programs, and automating processes at the land border to increase efficiency.

We will look for ways to reduce the cost of conducting legitimate business across the border by implementing, where practicable, common practices and streamlined procedures for customs processing and regulatory compliance.

We intend to work towards developing an integrated cargo security strategy that ensures compatible screening methods for goods and cargo before they depart foreign ports bound for the United States or Canada, so that once they enter the territory of either we can, together, accelerate subsequent crossings at land ports of entry between our two countries.

We recognize the importance of the U.S.-Canada Framework for the movement of Goods and People across the Border During and Following an Emergency, agreed to in 2009. It underscores the importance of coordinated, cooperative, and timely border management decision making to mitigate the impacts of disruptions on our citizens and economies.

Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement

We intend to build on existing bilateral law enforcement programs to develop the next generation of integrated cross-border law enforcement operations that leverage cross-designated officers and resources to jointly identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime.

We intend to seek further opportunities to pursue national security and transnational crime investigations together to maximize our ability to tackle the serious security threats that these organizations and individuals present.

We intend to improve the sharing among our law enforcement agencies of relevant information to better identify serious offenders and violent criminals on both sides of the border.

Critical Infrastructure and Cybersecurity

We intend to work together to prevent, respond to, and recover from physical and cyber disruptions of critical infrastructure and to implement a comprehensive cross-border approach to strengthen the resilience of our critical and cyber infrastructure with strong cross-border engagement.

The United States and Canada benefit from shared critical and cyber infrastructure. Our countries intend to strengthen cybersecurity to protect vital government and critical digital infrastructure of national importance, and to make cyberspace safer for all our citizens.

We intend to work together to defend and protect our use of air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace, and enhance the security of our integrated transportation and communications networks.

II. Implementation and Oversight

The United States and Canada intend to establish a Beyond the Border Working Group (BBWG) composed of representatives from the appropriate departments and offices of our respective federal governments.

Responsibility for ensuring inter-agency coordination will rest with the President and the Prime Minister and their respective officials.

We intend for the BBWG to report to their respective Leaders in the coming months, and after a period of consultation, with a joint Plan of Action to realize the goals of this declaration, that would, where appropriate, rely upon existing bilateral border-related groups, for implementation.

The BBWG will report on the implementation of this declaration to Leaders on an annual basis. The mandate of the BBWG will be reviewed after three years.

Share

The Ag Minute: EPA’s Sue & Settle Strategy Makes for Bad Agriculture Policy

*Editor’s Note* The following is a press release sent out by the House Committee on Agriculture, chaired by Frank D. Lucas. I would like to point out that although this release and the information contained in it, seems directed mostly to problems with agriculture regulation and the Environmental Protection Agency, this calling of the Obama Administration’s “Sue and Settle Strategy” is very widespread and reaches every aspect of Americans’ lives.

WASHINGTON – This week during The Ag Minute, guest host Rep. Tom Rooney discusses the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) growing trend of developing public policy as the result of lawsuit settlements. This defective method of putting in place regulations that circumvent the public rulemaking process can negatively impact the agriculture community. Rep. Rooney highlights one such example with the proposed Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Reporting Rule.
Click here to listen to The Ag Minute. The transcript is below.

“It seems agriculture can’t catch a break from the Obama administration’s regulatory overreach.
“The latest example has the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considering a new mandate that could compromise the safety and security of America’s livestock operations.

“The proposed mandate would require all Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, to submit to the EPA a long list of proprietary information regardless of whether or not they discharge manure. This information would be made public. If you don’t comply you would face fines up to $37,500 per day.

“The problem with this proposed mandate is two-fold:

“First, livestock producers are concerned the new regulation not only violates their privacy, but also poses significant security risks. Making extensive information public could put their families and operations in peril.

“Second, this mandate is part of an ongoing and alarming trend within the EPA where policy is increasingly being developed as the result of lawsuit settlements and not the rule of law.

“This particular proposed regulation was the result of a settlement with environmental groups, so the farmers and the ranchers that will be affected by this mandate had no say in this development.

“Using lawsuit settlements to create policy is an underhanded way of changing the rules on our farmers and ranchers without their voice and consideration.”

The Ag Minute is Chairman Lucas’s weekly radio address that is released from the House Agriculture Committee.

Share

Bill Whittle: The Vote Pump

Share

Maine’s 30-Year Moose Lottery Should No Longer Be Called a Lottery

Maine has made changes again this year to its moose lottery system that some are claiming will level the playing field so everyone wins, while others are calling the changes a short term gain resulting in a long time loss. However you look at it, the bitching will continue. It’s the nature of a lottery.

So what is a lottery by definition?

1. a gambling game or method of raising money, as for some public charitable purpose, in which a large number of tickets are sold and a drawing is held for certain prizes.
2. any scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance.
3. any happening or process that is or appears to be determined by chance: to look upon life as a lottery.

I think Maine’s Moose Lottery can fit into definition #1, as the lottery has been used by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) as a method of raising revenue for the department. However, I don’t think that “the distribution of prizes by chance” much applies any longer.

Since 1982, Maine has offered some form of a “lottery” in determining who gets to go on a moose hunt. For 2012 Maine will issue 3,840 permits to perhaps 40-50,000 applicants. At one point in time there were 95,000 applicants but that has since dropped to around 45,000.

That precipitous drop has puzzled MDIFW officials and Maine’s lawmakers as it appears they have no clear understanding of why. I’m sure it’s a combination of several things, i.e. wearing off of the newness, drop in interest due to many factors including many only want to try it once, dissatisfaction with the drawing process, cost, etc.

What is known about the lottery system is there’s a lot of complaining that goes on, especially from those who have never been drawn and/or see others having been selected by lottery several times and view the system as flawed or in some cases rigged. I have no reason to believe the system is intentionally rigged, but try telling that to the person who has applied for 30 years and not been drawn.

There is no solution to the perceived problems of the Moose Lottery. Most changes to the process usually only result in a slight shifting of where the complaints come from. Perhaps I can help to explain why there are difficulties.

The first and perhaps the biggest conundrum is that MDIFW tries to run the Moose Lottery as a revenue generator. We can’t blame them for that but doing so presents difficulties. One of those complications is that the moose population should be managed scientifically. Suppose management strategies are devised through processing collected data to determine information about the moose herd. Biologists then can recommend which Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) should harvest what sex and quantity of each. Thus, the issuance of permits by sex for each of the WMDs that allow a moose hunt.

Even though some of us might think using science to determine harvest requirements would be the difficult part of the equation, it isn’t. It’s the process of issuing the permits and keeping the masses happy.

In my mind, a true lottery would be an actual one chance, random draw, some win, some lose. I’m not a statistician but I’m wondering, in theory, if 40,000 people each bought one chance at a moose lottery and the same 40,000 people bought one chance for 30 consecutive years, how many of those 40,000 would never have been drawn a winner and conversely how many win more than once? Would the results be representative of what Maine’s Moose Lottery results look like now?

A straight up lottery wasn’t satisfactory and so changes began to unfurl and now the lottery more resembles a system of equitable redistribution than a “distribution of prizes by chance”.

Is it the responsibility of the MDIFW to generate revenue or provide hunting opportunities for all license buyers? Ask 50 hunters that question and you’ll get a divided response and 50 different explanations to support their claims.

If it is MFIDW’s job to make money, then we should just allow MDIFW to conduct a lottery for a moose hunt in the best way that will generate the most money. Perhaps auctioning off the 3,840 permits to the highest 3,840 bidders would pad the coffers nicely……..well, at least for awhile.

If it’s MDIFW’s job to ensure that Maine license hunters all get a chance to hunt a moose then the lottery system should be abandoned altogether. Either concoct some mocked down version of an “Any-Deer Permit” where all licensed hunters have a season, albeit a short one, or establish as simple as can be done a rotation method of selection. I’ll spare you the details.

The changes to the lottery are an attempt to approach equity in the system. In other words, to reduce the number (and I don’t know what that number is) of people who have never been drawn for a permit. This is what is being perceived as the driving force toward justice. The question I might ask is will the number of people who will be quieted by the resolve of their viewed unfairness be greater than those who will abandon the process altogether?

Which brings us to another problem with the Maine Moose Lottery – politics. Simply put, a grumbling and unhappy wannabe moose hunter is a potential new vote if some legislator somewhere can make them happy. Need I say more?

In a true lottery, where there will always be winners and losers and the losers, a percentage, will always complain, or a rotation device where everyone eventually gets a chance, will not stop the grieving. Griping is human nature but there might be less of it than what is being echoed now.

There are a lot of unanswered questions with the latest round of attempting to legislate fairness, most of which we won’t know the answers to until 5-10 years down the road, when the moaning and groaning begins to escalate once more.

Tom Remington

Share

The Government Can

I believe I posted this video some time ago. It was sent to me yesterday and after watching it again this morning, I decided it was still very fitting as we are in the middle of a primary election and only 10 months away from November’s elections.

Share

Florida Republican Primary Voting Today

Today is primary voting day for registered republicans in Florida to choose who will represent their party in the November election against incumbent President Barack Obama.

I voted. I just returned. I hopped on my bicycle at 10:05 and peddled about one mile to the precinct, cast my vote and peddled home knowing and resting in comfort that for the next year anyone who doesn’t like my berating of the politicians and ask me if I voted, I can say yes! A vote cast is a permit to bitch.

Get your bitching permit today! (And God make my telephone stop ringing!!!)

Tom Remington

Share

A “Feeding” Tube is a Media Device

It’s political regurgitation season once again and once again the people are fully displaying their inability to think, evoke history or differentiate truth. But it’s not solely their fault.

For those of us fortunate enough to be living in Florida, we have all become subjected to the intrusion of filthy and disgusting mass robotic telephone messages that seldom allow anyone to have a moment of peace. It’s worse than living with several 2 and 3-year-old children who have yet to grasp mentally those benign traits necessary for coexistence.

Because our dishonest and lying lawmakers exempted themselves from “do not call” lists, the primary season has them out in full battle gear intruding into every aspect of our lives. It’s worse than SPAM.

What is the reason for this? It’s because the average voter fits a certain profile; a portrait of a non thinker that requires a feeding tube in order to know what is required of them and what decisions to make. The creation of this caricature began in our infancy, molding us into what we have become. As such, those so-called masters of the campaign strategies, believe they know what each candidate should say and do to get you to vote for them, regardless of truth.

Most voters require a feeding tube in order to get their political nutrition. I laughed this morning as I was preparing information to write this article. I decided to Google “feeding tube”. Wikipedia’s first sentences reads: “A feeding tube is a medical device used to provide nutrition to patients who cannot obtain nutrition by swallowing.” Bingo! I changed a couple of words and came up with this: “A feeding tube is a media device used to provide political nutrition to voters who cannot obtain nutrition by thinking.”

As of this writing, there are four GOP candidates remaining in the race. Mitt Romney will be 65 in March. Newt Gingrich will be 69 in June. Ron Paul will be 77 in August and Rick Santorum will be 54 in May. Anyone who has mental capacity to think and recall, knows all about Mitt Romney. He was governor of Massachusetts. The same can be said of Gingrich, who spent years in the United State Congress and was Speaker of the House. Ron Paul has been around in Congress longer than the dust in some of the cracks and Rick Santorum was a senator from Pennsylvania. All of this and people require a televised debate, where biased and misleading questions are asked to candidates, the most who have been instructed how to answer them in order to please the most number of voters. And if having all this valuable information available, there are voters who are undecided. Really?

Because we have been programmed to know where our political nutrition must come from, voters sit down and plug in their feeding tubes to all sources of media. But like with eating food or even taking it by feeding tube, our stomachs must retain the ability to digest and process this food to get the nutrients from it. Being tube fed by the media, still requires the act of digestion. In other words, it is required of the voter, even if you can no longer swallow, to digest the information discarding the waste and using the nutrients.

Media is very powerful. It decides many things in this country and around the world. We are programmed to believe that what comes from media is truth. It is not. There are facts mixed with propaganda – nutrition mixed with waste. You can digest it or regurgitate it.

It is time for voters to once again learn to chew and swallow, get rid of the media feeding tube and engage a thinking-for-yourself kind of brain. Or, you can let the feeding tube tell you how to vote, what to think and how to act.

Tom Remington

Share