The Second Amendment and Other Things

Friends,
I make the mistake of tuning in Bill O’Reilly this evening, 22, Feb, and boy, did he get my dander up.

I was already upset with his anti-Second Amendment rhetoric a few days ago. In case you didn’t hear it he tried to make the case that during an emergency, like Hurricane Katrina, government has the right to suspend the Second Amendment and confiscate personal firearms. I was aghast when I heard that. You just can’t cherry-pick application of the Constitution. The Constitution is applicable at all times. Unfortunately, our Colorado State Legislature seems to have the same opinion as Mr. O’Reilly. A couple of weeks ago the Democrats in the Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee decided that they were going to protect the government from us radical citizens by denying us our Second Amendment rights during emergency situations. The governor still can declare an emergency and take our guns.

This same august group also decided that they really do not want to acknowledge that the States have rights that supersede the federal government. They voted to table a bill that would have made any gun manufactured in Colorado, sold in Colorado and intended for use exclusively in Colorado exempt from federal regulations. This is the same bill passed in a number of other states whose legislatures and governors have shown the courage to be Americans as envisioned by the Founders. It looks like our Colorado Legislature doesn’t want to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I can understand that; exercising rights is hard work and requires that you take responsibility for your decisions and actions. We sure don’t want the Colorado Democrats to be too stressed out by being responsible for anything.

However, as usual, I have moved myself off on a tangent. I was talking about Mr. O’Reilly. Tonight he showed a clip of Rush Limbaugh doing a parody of him. Mr. O’Reilly seemed to be flattered that he would be parodied by such as Mr. Limbaugh. But I have to wonder, was it a parody or was he being mocked. Juan Williams thought the later. I agree. Mr. Limbaugh was mocking Mr. O’Reilly’s take on the OWH’s political philosophy. Mr. O’Reilly doesn’t believe that the OWH is a socialist. Really, he isn’t? As Speaker Gingrich pointed out, the OWH has taken over a great deal of the banking industry, garnered control over two of three major auto manufactures, and is trying to take over the entire health care system, fully one-sixth of the American economy. I have to ask Mr. O’Reilly, “What qualifies for socialist in your political science dictionary?”

It seems that he wants to give the OWH the benefit of the doubt to see what will come out of this grand experiment on the American economy, and our very way of life. I can’t be that generous. The OWH has worked tirelessly to eradicate out freedoms and the very foundations of our society. The Founders realized that the strength of this country was in the individual, not the government. That is why the Constitution could only be ratified with the guarantee that a bill of rights would be soon forth coming. As I have pointed out in these pages numerous times, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically enumerate the limits on government and the individual rights guaranteed to all citizens. That government derives its power from the people, not the other way around.

Bill O’Reilly is wrong. This is not the time to give the OWH a pass on anything. We, as strict Constitutionalists, must constantly hold the OWH to the standard set down by the Founders. In this the first year of this administration he is failing us. American ingenuity and exercise of the free market, only, will pull us out of the depression that this administration has plunged us into.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Post-Mortem of a Fraud

Friends,
The following is another excellent guest Discourse from Andy Pico.
Enjoy,
Dan

Post-Mortem of a Fraud

The widening scandal known as Climategate is snaring an ever increasing number of scientists and organizations. Much of the media coverage so far has focused only on the emails which revealed a cabal of unethical scientists at the core of the scandal. These emails show a clear intent to deceive. The key issue is that the emails, bad enough as they are, constitute less than a quarter of the release. The other 3/4 of the files includes the data, analysis and programming code used to fabricate a fraudulent climate history and exaggerate the recent warming trend.

The scandal has gone far beyond the unethical and criminal misconduct at the Climate Research Unit (CRU). The widening scandal has uncovered scientific misconduct in the fabrication of data at the CRU as well as other surface station reporting agencies in Australia, New Zealand, and the US (NASA and NOAA) which deliberately reduce earlier, recorded temperatures and inflate recent temperature rise.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now been caught in the manipulation of data, the suppression of viewpoints, and the use of non-scientific papers from environmental advocacy groups as the basis for multiple “findings”.

To put this in perspective one has to go to the earlier reports of the UN IPCC. In the first and second reports, the climate history was based on research by hundreds of scientists using a wide number and variety of proxies to reconstruct the climate history of the world. This history described the significant climate cycles including the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Little Ice Age (LIA) and the current “Unprecedented Warming” Period (UWP). This climate history posed a problem for the IPCC in trying to raise urgency about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in the UWP since the IPCC’s own reports showed the MWP was several degrees warmer than the current UWP.

The IPCC third report included the now infamous Hockey Stick Graph which eliminated the earlier climate variation and showed a flat climate history with a recent, sharp rise. What was done was to carefully cherry-pick data sets and eliminate any which didn't support the intended result. A small data-set in central, northern Russia was used. The result was based on a single data set consisting of just 12 trees in a small geographic area. Within that small data set the results are skewed by just one unusual tree. Just. One. Tree.
The station data from CRU and NASA was then used, after manipulation to magnify the warming trend, to append to the tree ring data and present a falsely contrived climate history with greatly exaggerated, recent warming. One example of this manipulation is the dropping of cooler stations and replacing real stations with “constructive stations” based on the retained, urban heat islands.

This fraudulent data was used to zero out natural climate variations in the input to the 22 climate models which form the entire basis for the IPCC climate change predictions and upon which all of the rest of the so-called “overwhelming climate science” is based. This is how natural climate change has been falsely attributed to human activities.

The scientific fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is collapsing with almost unprecedented speed. Many scientists on the IPCC are themselves calling for a complete overhaul and even abolition of this agency.

The size and depth of this fraud goes far beyond the direct scientific misconduct so far exposed. The theory of AGW, or climate change, has been used as the justification for a massive expansion in international, global governance and control or seizure of global energy markets. Here in this country, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving towards the extra-legal regulation of every activity that emits greenhouse gasses, based entirely on the now fully discredited science of the IPCC. Carbon Markets across the globe are based not on clearly defined securities valuation, but solely on the cap and trade value manufactured out of hot air. This market bubble is now in the process of worldwide collapse as the extent of the greatest attempted fraud and swindle in history crashes into rubble.

Andres Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired Navy Commander, Naval Flight Officer and project manager in the defense industry. He is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.

A Resurgence of Patriotism

Friends,
Has anyone besides me noticed the upsurge in patriotism over the past year? It seems like every few days someone sends me another email linking to a new rendition of the National Anthem or a new patriotic song about America, or some stirring story about our brave men and women in uniform. I have been reflecting on this phenomenon over the past few days and have come up with some conclusions as to the cause of this new-found national pride.

In November 2008, the voters became enamored with “hope and change.” We had had eight years of an administration that concentrated on defense and, I believe, that it was effective. However, fiscal and social policy had some serious problems; then came the new administration and a completely new philosophy of governing. This strange new philosophy may be called the “Philosophy of the Campaign” because the OWH has been campaigning since early 2008, nonstop. I have never made any secret about the fact that I don’t trust him or any of his czars. Also, I am sick and tired of seeing him on this interview or that interview where people are “getting shivers up their legs” just for the thrill of talking to him.

Let’s take a look at what all this campaigning has been about. He and his socialist minions decided that it would be appropriate to undermine the free market by bailing out anyone who had a sad song to sing. This is just a short look at some of the bailouts:

AIG - $70B (ever look at where the congressmen and senators have their retirement funds?)
Asset Guarantee Program (Citigroup/BofA) - $12.5B
Automotive Industry Financing Program (GM, GMAC, Chrysler, Chrysler Financial) - $80.1B
Public-Private Investment Program (bailing out toxic assets from financial institutions) - $100B

I will admit that not all of these funds have been used and some that have been used have been paid back. But my point is that the OWH and his minions are using the taxpayers’ money, our money, to subvert the free market. Why is this necessary? I would like to take a quick glance at a couple of the above examples and see what is behind them.

The automotive industry arguably played a major role in the boom in American industrialization. When Henry Ford came up with the assembly line process, the manufacturing industry took off running. There are two things that I see as sucking the automobile industry dry. The first is government regulation. The government has regulated the automobile industry to such an extent that GM, Chrysler, and Ford spend millions each year just in regulation compliance. The other factor dragging down the auto industry is the unions. The unions have an incredible strangle hold on the auto manufacturers, and of course, the unions maintain this strangle hold by buying and running politicians. Congress cannot allow GM, or Chrysler to go out of business because they would be letting down their major constituents, the unions.

The Public-Private Investment Program is one that has been a long time coming and the sad thing is that everyone saw it coming. The Feds told bankers to loan money to people to buy houses even if these people did not qualify for the mortgage. But everyone got a house. Now, we, the taxpayers, are paying for people who cannot make their mortgage payments. This is part of that “entitlement mentality” I keep talking about. Here’s a quick quiz for you: What do you call someone who can’t afford to buy a house? Answer: A renter. (Thanks, Tom)

Another area I could waste several pages on is the government’s attempted takeover of 1/6th of the US economy in the form of health care reform but that is a topic for another Discourse.

Taken all together, I think that the average US citizen looks at all of the egregious actions taken by this Congress and the administration and they long for another time when America was great, when we were looked up to on the world stage. This has prompted a resurgence of patriotism as we look longingly at better days gone by and hope for a better tomorrow.

I think that better tomorrow is coming. The socialists in charge of the government today are so blind that they do not understand that their takeover of so many segments of our society is literally shredding the fabric of our nation. The Founders saw this danger and put safeguards in place to prevent it. Those safeguards are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is past time for the Congress, the OWH, and the courts to reinstitute those documents. It is past time for the government to get out of the private sector and allow it to operate the way it was designed.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

PS: On a personal note, I would like to wish my little brother a Happy Birthday.

What's Wrong America?

Friends,
Let me say right up front that this is going to be a rant. I haven’t done an old fashioned, down home type of rant in a long time and I'm over due.

Would someone please tell me what has happened to the gumption in this country? What happened to people standing up for injustices whether in the public halls, the corner grocer, or on the streets of Mogadishu? Every day I read about some pervert or other who has been caught and charged with child pornography or some gang of leaches being busted for running drugs, drugs that incapacitate and kill our kids; those same drugs that contribute to the delinquency of young and old alike. Where is the outrage?

What is just as bad if not worse is the absolute criminal behavior that takes place in the halls of Congress. In the name of progress, Congress and the OWH have decided that you and I don’t work for the betterment of ourselves and our families; we work for the betterment of the state collective. Does that ring a bell with anyone out there? Where in our Constitution does it say that each and every one of us is responsible to pay for someone else’s health care insurance? Where is it written in the Constitution that we are responsible for paying for Nancy Pelosi’s travel with several hundred of her closest friends and supporters?

I remember hearing a story out of Viet Nam where a small Vietnamese child walked up to a US GI and gave him a nice cold Coke. The GI took it, smiled, said “thank you,” and drank it. The Coke was laced with acid. The GI died. That is what those animals did; they recruited innocents to do their dirty work for them. Now we have radical jihadists doing the same thing all across the world because anyone who is not Muslim must die. Do you ever hear about a suicide bomber over the age of 30? There may have been some, but I don’t remember hearing about it. Have we become so desensitized that it just doesn’t matter anymore? Where is the public outcry?

In the halls of Congress, and even in the White House, there is a constant question about whether or not we should be the world’s police force. Where is the outrage in Congress and the White House when some over sexed and frustrated Muslim teenager blows himself and a few dozen of the surrounding citizenry into the next world? If we aren’t going to put the pipper on these guys, who is? What other country out there has gone into some absolute mess to clean it up, left with nothing to show for it, even gratitude, and gone on to the next mess without leaving a bunch of strings? And yet, the OWH went around the world and apologized for our actions. Where is the outrage?

We are told that we should be more tolerant and understanding of Muslims. Why? They want to kill us and our way of life; I feel no obligation to be tolerant and understanding. We are told that the drug problem is just too hard and that we should treat the addicts with kindness and compassion to dry them out. Why? It’s called tough love. We are told that the illegal immigrants just want to find a better life and that we should let them in to work. Why? This is our country; if they want to better themselves they should make their home country better so that they can have the appropriate opportunity. Instead of turning tail and running from the problems in their country, fight them and clean up the place.

Where is the outrage? Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s we heard about “The Silent Majority.” Well, congratulations, folks, that silent majority has matured into “The Mute Majority.” It’s time we all stood on our own hind legs and tell the bad guys that “I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.” The Coalition for a Conservative Majority, the Tea Partiers, and the 9/12 folks are doing a great job, but they can’t do it without the rest of us.

We, as Americans, should be proud enough of our country to want to protect it from “enemies, foreign and domestic.” That came from the oath I took in service to my country and I was not released from it when I retired, and neither are you.

As always, comments and discussion is welcome.

Dan

Personal Responsibility

Friends,
Let’s have a brief discussion about personal responsibility. Now, before you get mad at me, I know that is a taboo subject in today’s world, but let’s think about it – please humor me.

When I was a kid, as I can remember, there was only one kind of credit card that was in common use and that was a gas company credit card. Since I was too young to have one I can only assume that the debt that was incurred had to be paid. I know that is a silly concept today but, as I said, bear with me. If I recall correctly, Sears and Roebuck had a “revolving credit” account. That meant that if you charged a washer on the account in January, and then paid it down to within a few dollars, then charged a drier on the account and then paid it down to within a few dollars, then charged a refrigerator on the account and then half way down the payment schedule you defaulted on the account they could come pick up all three appliances.

Was this unfair? Maybe or maybe not, but the point is that this is the way the account was structured and you understood the consequences of not paying. That is what I call enforced responsibility; consequences for your decisions and/or actions.

Every day I hear advertisements on the radio or TV saying something like “Do you owe the IRS $10,000 or more? Now you can negotiate that down to pennies on the dollar,” or “Do you have over $10,000 in credit card debt? Now you can be forgiven most if not all of it.” When and how did we get to the point where we expect to incur debts and not have to make good on them? Friends, there is a very simple word for this concept, THEFT. When a person makes a commitment, they follow through with it. If they don’t, they are a liar and a thief. Strong words? Maybe so, but that is the way I feel about it.

But wait, I am being completely insensitive and politically incorrect about this situation. After all, our president the OWH advocates making this attitude public policy. In his State of the Union blather he said:
To make college more affordable, this bill (speaking about an education bill) will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs – because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

There are two very blatant things wrong here. The first goes along with the theme of this Discourse and that is personal responsibility. As a public policy we are going to tell college students that after 10 or 20 years they will have their debt completely forgiven. Well, I'm one of the folks loaning them that money and I have a vote on that public policy. I VOTE NO! These people assume a debt and I vote that they pay their assumed debt.

The second thing that is wrong with that quote is that the OWH is intentionally encouraging the growth of government in the hiring of college students who will be able to work in one bureaucracy or another for 10 years and be free of the student loans THAT I LOANED THEM.

The OWH has said and done a lot of stupid things in the last year, but this one is right up there with the best. He has absolutely no idea how to solve our economic or social problems. As I have stated in these Discourses in the past, when you are out of money, stop spending. As Newt has said, when you can’t afford to buy a house, don’t buy it. If you can’t afford to go to college, work your way through it.

The only way I can see to get this country back on its collective economic feet is to get rid of the myriad of non-constitutional departments and bureaus and give those functions back to the states and the people where they belong. In that way, billions of dollars that we are hemorrhaging into bureaucracies could go to our debtors and put us back into the black ink territory. A result of these cuts would be massive cuts in social programs. You say that we can’t do that because so many people depend on them? How about making people depend on themselves? That is what the “Greatest Generation” did. They weren’t great just because they won the war against Fascism; they also persevered against the economic crisis brought on by failed government policies.

Friends we are headed there again. These bureaucrats and incompetents in Washington are doing what we used to call “featherbedding.” It is past time we put a stop to it.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and discussions.
Dan

The Tenth Amendment

Friends,

There is currently a movement fostered by the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, Colorado Springs to encourage the Colorado Legislature and governor to tell the federal government that we are going to uphold the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and expect the same from them. I don’t have to tell you what prompted this movement. At this point I think we should review the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That seems pretty simple to me. That tells me that the powers granted to the federal government are specifically enumerated in the Constitution and no other powers are to be assumed by that government. It also says that if a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, it is reserved for the individual states or passed directly to the people.

This is a good place to discuss the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The first nine Amendments were drafted specifically to enumerate and ensure those rights that the founders believed the citizens possessed by virtue of being citizens. The Bill of Rights was drafted to set restrictions on government. It could be cogently argued that each individual Amendment of the first ten is more important than the others. However, I would argue that the first nine Amendments equally detail the rights of all citizens of the United States and the Tenth Amendment sets the boundaries for the federal government with respect to those rights.

While I am not a constitutional scholar, I have read it many times and have yet to find where the federal government has the authority to hold such massive control over the states. All of that control has been legislated since 1791. This points out two problems; first is that Congress and successive presidents have taken it upon themselves to exert that control and second that the states and citizens allow them to do it.

I see two ways to view the power of the federal government. The first is that the feds give the states, communities, and individuals money for various purposes under various programs. In exchange for these monies they demand certain “paybacks.” The overwhelming tendency today is to give the federal government what it wants because states, communities, and individuals want the money. The second way to look at it is to question why are we so willing to accede to their wishes, especially considering that it is our money that they are giving us? The US government has a very poor track record when it comes to living up to its self-proclaimed obligations. Congress just changes those obligations at will, not bothering to consult with the people most affected.

One concept to “encourage” the feds to live up to their obligations is to put all monies slated to go to them into a “sequester fund” until such time that they live up to their stated obligations. The problem with this concept is that we would be admitting that they have the authority to enact and carry out the many programs that come out of Washington. I would argue that they do not have that authority as stipulated in the Tenth Amendment.

I would urge all state legislatures to pass binding resolutions to disassociate themselves from the mandates of the federal government except those specifically set down by the Constitution. Why should we in Colorado pay for the housing of someone who cannot or will not work in Detroit? That is a city and/or state issue and not within the mandate of the federal government. It is time for us to take our rights back!

Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857

For more on this subject refer to my Political Discourse of 10 June 2008 entitled Constitutional Authority on this blogsite.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and discussion.

Dan

Climategate

Friends,
Below is an article by my friend Andy Pico who is passionate about the climate change debate.
Enjoy,
Dan

Climategate
The last few weeks in the world of climate change and science has been, if anything, entertaining. The show in the Gazette opened with Professor Horner’s invective against what he erroneously labels “science denial”, Gazette, 19 Nov 09. In his tirade against the non-believers he equates anthropogenic climate change skeptics with science denial and lists a series of psychological pathologies.

On the following Monday, Nov 23rd, the Associated Propaganda’s (AP) local hysteria outlet for one-sided propaganda, formerly known as the Gazette News Division, ran Borenstein’s rant of how climate change has worsened beyond the grimmest warnings issued in 1997.

Between these two blatant pieces of hysterical propaganda was perhaps the most significant breakthrough in climate science in decades. The posting of the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) data by perhaps an inside whistleblower, has revealed what many in the Climate Realistic Skeptics branch of Legitimate Science have long charged. The systematic and intentional manipulation and outright fabrication of climate data has now been fully confirmed and the Skeptics vindicated.

To make clear the importance of this data in the climate change debate, this is the core data upon which the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Theory is based. This is the data upon which the climate modelers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based its work. This manipulated and fabricated data is the foundation upon which the rest of the fraudulent theory of AGW is built upon.

The revelations and analysis is on-going and new revelations are reported daily. Continuing coverage is available here. What is clear so far is that the scientists at CRU were engaged, together with co-conspirators across our naturally climate changing planet, in an intentional and massive fraud driven by a political agenda. The technical details of how the data was manipulated together with the data are included in the revealed files which go far beyond mere emails. These techniques were shared across the planet with like-minded political zealots in scientific positions across academia and government positions. Similar fabrications have been previously exposed through independent analysis of NASA data and other agencies.

Perhaps the most egregious scientific manipulations now exposed by Climategate are the intentional perversion of the peer-review and publication processes. These faux-scientists collaborated to block publication of opposing views in scientific journals. Those editors of scientific journals who adhered to ethical processes were removed from their positions and replaced with political zealots. The faux-scientists then made the specious claim that there were no opposing viewpoints published in those peer-reviewed journals. Those journals which maintained scientific impartiality and adhered to ethical conduct were black-balled and presented as being less than mainstream and merely the fringe of lower order scientists who could not be published in the mainline journals.

This formula has been widely used and some of our own local AGW Hysterics have stated as much, often citing a blatantly phony “study” that claims 97% of scientists and published papers are in support of AGW, after of course ignoring any journals or scientists who disagree. One of our local scientists went so far as to claim in an on-line exchange that he could find only 29 papers that disagreed with AGW Theory, when challenged on that point cited the above where only those journals who have been taken over by editorial zealots were counted and all of the previous work on climate history covering previous climate cycles, which used to be the “Scientific Consensus” on climate history prior to the IPCC commissioned fabrication by Dr. Mann of the fraudulent “Hockey Stick”. Dr. Mann’s data manipulations have been previously debunked and have now been fully exposed; programs, data and all.

The thousands of scientific papers that touch on climate change and climate history across many fields of study have been ignored by the faux-scientist cabal of political operatives engaged in unethical and illegal misconduct. In their emails between co-conspirators, the faux-scientists at the core of AGW Theory operating from their tax-payer funded agencies across the cooling planet admitted between them that the climate had stopped warming and that they had to “hide” this fact from the public and coordinated that scientific sophistry of deception.

This certainly vindicates all of us who have pointed out the inconvenient fact of global cooling over the past decade and been attacked for doing so. And yet, with their fraud fully exposed and their perfidy open for all with the intellectual and moral integrity to see, the propaganda continues and the real denial of science by the AGW Hysterics continues. The President plans to commit the US, without any legislation passed to do so, to carbon reduction targets. The House has passed a Cap and Trade bill and the Senate now has before it a true monstrosity of epic proportions designed to impose government control of energy with enormous costs to individuals and horrendous economic impacts. It is not science denial or an exaggeration, as Professor Horner put it, to identify the costs and point out where government seizure of businesses, which is socialism, and oppressive government control of businesses, which is economic fascism, combined with corrupt cronyism will result in enormous costs to society and the destruction of freedom, pushed for by those who are “proud to call themselves Liberal”. The liberal/progressive adherents to AGW Hysteria like to push the notion that the costs of doing nothing are too high, when in fact the costs of doing nothing are, nothing, and the costs of their programs are enormous.

It is not a denial of science to reference a vast body of scientific work and solid evidence that supports theories of natural climate change and climate cycles. It is far more accurate to state that the outright data fabrication and cynical perversion of peer review is the true denial of science. Those faux-scientists, illiterate in economics, ignorant of history, aided and abetted by the incompetent and corrupt agenda-journalists of the Propaganda Press, are the true deniers and cynical manipulators of science in pursuit of a false political agenda. Indeed, when questioned on Climategate, Carol Browner, the Mendacious One’s Climate Grupenfuhrer, stated that the corrupted data did not matter. It has never been about the data, which was fabricated from the start; it has always been about the political agenda that hijacked the science. Now, the EPA proposes to regulate, without any legislation, greenhouse gasses as a threat to human health.

Perhaps now we can have an honest, open and ethical review of the science in a process that respects the real principles of open discussion and pursuit of real science, while this still remains a free country.

Andres Pico