Opinions

I sometimes wonder how people arrive at the opinions they hold. I think a lot of it comes from where they were born and raised. If you were born in France, you’ll think that Paris is the centre of the universe, and that the great people all have names like Balzac or Toulouse-Lautrec or Lavoiser. If you’re born in England, then London is the centre of the universe, and all the great people had names like Newton or Locke or Darwin and Gainsborough. You absorb what’s around you, and come to embody it. And you become French, or English, or whatever.

That said, I sometimes wonder whether my slightly divergent opinions about more or less everything grow out of the simple fact that I spent many of my formative years outside England. For throughout youth I lived in an extraordinary number of places other than England. Like Barbados, and Eritrea, and Libya, and Gambia, and several places in Brazil. We’d just land in these countries, and stay there a few months or a few years, before moving on. And none of them were a bit like England. The climate was different, the plants were different, the animals were different, the people were different, their clothes were different, their language was different, the food was different, even the roads and the street signs were different. Everything was different. My childhood consisted of a series of jolting changes, as our little family spaceship landed on yet another new planet. It meant constant adaptation, constant change, constant readiness to face surprises. Like big dead sharks on the beaches of the river Gambia, giant spiders in the forests of Brazil, and moths the size of small birds, and plumed dancing girls on the streets for Rio de Janeiro’s carnival. You never saw spiders like that or girls like that in England. Not ever.

My childhood consisted of saying goodbye to one reality, and hello to new ones. Nothing was fixed.

And I’ve often thought that someone who grew up in one little village in England or France or anywhere, and lived there all their lives, would have had a quite different idea of the world. It would be something that was fixed and almost changeless, in which the slightest change – a tree blowing down, a house being built – would have seemed shocking. I’ve supposed, perhaps wrongly, that such people would be conservatives, unwilling to change, and perhaps incapable of change.

On the other hand, when your environment never changes, perhaps it engenders a powerful desire for something different.

And when life keeps changing all the time, perhaps it creates a powerful wish to come to a stop. When at university some of my friends invited me to drive all the way to India in a LandRover one summer, I declined the offer because I’d already seen many of the places that they would see, and they held little allure.

University was another new environment, another planet. There were girls, and left wing philosophies, and  grass, and new music. That’s when I became a bit left wing. It all rubs off a bit – although in the end I decided that Marx and Hegel and co. were completely incomprehensible in ways that Newton and Locke were not. And that’s because I’m English, and I’ve grown up absorbing an English set of sensibilities, if only from my two English parents, even if they were sitting on a beach in Brazil drinking cervejas and reading O Globo.

I’ve always liked and admired people who were thoughtful. My best friend at university was a thinker, whose conversations with me always began, “Don’t you think that…” From him I learned the trick of thinking slowly, talking slowly, and writing slowly. I saw him as the charismatic practitioner of exquisite rationality. Years later, when he’d retained his charisma, but lost his reason, he seemed a hollow man.

And some people I immediately distrusted. Dr W, in whose house I once lived, and who was the first antismoker I ever encountered, profoundly shocked me one day by breaking out into a loud tirade against his errant eldest son (probably caught smoking), and stood bellowing in the hallway of his house against the “filthy, filthy, filthy” habit. I immediately concluded that he was a bit mad, and when a few years later I took up smoking, it was in part because there couldn’t be much wrong with it if a nutter like him thought that there was. Dr W gave me a permanent lifetime inoculation against antismoking. Because I witnessed the irrationality of it at first hand.

I used to wonder even back then why people thought the way they did, and why I thought the way I did. And at one point I suggested that perhaps people’s opinions and beliefs about anything were the arithmetic average of the opinions and beliefs of the people around them. After all, when I became surrounded by people who talk about the ‘class struggle’ and ‘capitalism’, it had all rubbed off a bit, and I had absorbed a little bit of their opinions and beliefs. And conversely, they absorbed a little bit of mine.

And we tend to talk to people, or listen to people, who re-enforce our own opinions, and make them a bit stronger. There’s nothing nicer than having someone agree with you.

But when such people come out with something I don’t agree with, the result can be a catastrophic collapse in belief in everything they say. For example, I used to like Channel 4’s John Snow, until he grandly declared one evening on Channel 4 News that “the debate is over” on global warming. For me the debate is never over. And when and if it’s ever over, I will have lapsed into dogmatism. And so I began to see John Snow as a dogmatic thinker, and all his beliefs (including his belief in global warming) as dogmas. And I began to see the global warming alarmists not as open-minded scientists but closed-minded dogmatists.

And I distrust experts. I read an article a few months back in which Labour leader Ed Miliband expounded his faith in experts, and my small faith in him immediately grew smaller. An expert is simply someone whose opinion you accord greater weight than the opinions of non-experts. In the process of averaging opinion, the expert’s opinion counts for more. And so, the way I see it, experts – and pundits and philosophers and professors and preachers  – are people who have unwarranted and undue influence in forming social opinion. They can lead people by their noses. And Ed Miliband is someone who is easily led.

But these days, everyone trusts experts. If you believe in global warming, it’s because you trust climate ‘scientists’. And in doing so you’ll be setting their opinions above your own lifetime experience. I don’t trust people who don’t trust themselves, but will instead trust any Tom, Dick, or Harry who has a doctorate in epidemiology or something.

And I think that’s because the older I get, the less I think us humans know about anything. I think that most of our ‘experts’ are essentially no different from witch doctors. Last year I was entertaining the idea that not only do our biologists not know what life is, but also probably don’t know how cells grow and divide. And if they don’t know that, then they know almost nothing about anything. And Sir Richard Doll was just another witch doctor when he claimed that smoking causes cancer, and may as well have been wearing a grass skirt with a bone through his nose. Because nobody knows what cancer is.

And nobody knows how economies work, or how human societies work, or anything else either, and we have entire universities full of people who know nothing about anything, giving each other Nobel Prizes.

It even extends to rocket science. A few months back, when a fireball exploded over Chelyabinsk in Russia, NASA immediately declared that very same day that it was completely unrelated to the asteroid DA14 which was skimming past the Earth that day. How could they know? How could they possibly declare such a thing after seeing a couple of videos of the fireball, and getting its approach path completely wrong (they said it was going N-S, when actually it was going E-W)? So I’ve been involved in an effort to find a rock that was a companion of DA14, off to one side, that could land on Chelyabinsk. It’s a search for a needle in a haystack, and maybe we’ll never find it. But I know that I don’t believe NASA, and will never believe any ‘expert’ who comes up with an instant and authoritative explanation for something they clearly haven’t had time to think about carefully, or indeed at all.

But then, I can do a bit of rocket science. And I can do a bit of climate science too. I also tend to cook my own food, and bake my own cakes, and grow my own tobacco. Once I used to even make my own clothes. Because if you can do things yourself, you don’t have to rely on ‘experts’. And these days I have much greater trust in ordinary, non-expert people who can do a few things themselves. Who can grow plants, and make tables, and repair computers, and who bring a bit of that skill to all the other questions in life that they encounter, and don’t just drink in what some ‘expert’ on TV tells them.

But now I’m rambling…

 

About the archivist

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Opinions

  1. lfb_uk says:

    No, not rambling, realisation that its all bull…. your becoming you!

  2. woodsy42 says:

    I can empathise with everything you say, although I grew up in mostly one area and I also distrust experts so there is more to it than that! Also like you I can trust craftsmen, engineers and tradesmen who have real skills much more than I can trust armchair experts- their output has to work in the real world
    To be fair I didn’t distrust experts when I was younger, just as a very young child believes their parents the young person tends(or did in my day) to believe adults. As we age we realise that not all adults are right so we look to the more learned and educated people in society for knowledge or wisdom.
    Maybe lots of people stop thinking critically and never grow beyond that stage? Obviously you did, and I have, because we now see that even honest experts are oftem falliable and fall into groupthink, and many more are dishonest, some for money and some for ego reasons.

  3. beobrigitte says:

    There were girls, and left wing philosophies, and grass, and new music. That’s when I became a bit left wing. It all rubs off a bit

    Nowadays there are healthists, eternal life philosophies, no grass, and not-really-new music.
    When you’re young everything “rubs off” a bit. When you’re “old” you have walked this planet for long enough to not be sucked into fads so easily.

  4. cherie79 says:

    I am at the stage where the very word ‘expert’ immediately induces disbelief.

    • Reinhold says:

      So am I.
      And the word “study” as well.

      • beobrigitte says:

        “Experts” and “studies” just serve to discredit science to force an issue that common sense dictates is non-sense into a public mass manipulation machinery.

        It’s a pity that this is a real set back for science; worthwhile studies lack the funding that is being diverted for absolute non-sense, e.g. “passive smoke”.

      • nisakiman says:

        And you just know that the report on the ‘study’ will conclude with: “…but further research is needed.”

  5. junican says:

    Is it true that experts are people who know more and more about less and less?

    If so, then how can it be that Doll et al could pronounce that smoking causes lung cancer merely because they had used some clever formulae to calculate that more smokers get lung cancer than non-smokers? The mathematics prove nothing, except what they show to be true – which is that there are numerical associations. Doll, as an ‘expert’ in calculations lacked knowledge of the CAUSE of the associations and had no right to pronounce on them. As we know, this ignorance came to a head during the McTear V Imperial Tobacco Case, when Tobacco Control refused to bring the evidence that smoking cause lung cancer to court.

    But that did not stop Doll et al conning the powers-that-be into accepting his word. It never seems to have occurred to anyone to try to find out WHY some (very few in fact) smokers got lung cancer more often than non-smokers.

  6. Frank Davis says:

    Junican,

    I was reading your study of the Doll & Hill British Doctors study a couple of nights back. I admired your tenacity, that you had read the whole damn lot. That’s very admirable.

    One thing that you got wrong was that you said that Richard Doll wasn’t a doctor. In fact he was. And he served as a doctor on hospital ships during the war. He was not an expert in calculations at all. He was neither an epidemiologist nor a mathematician. Yet he came to cloak himself with both these titles.

    • junican says:

      I stand corrected, Frank.
      In that case, he wasn’t an expert!

      • Frank Davis says:

        Just to confirm: from Doll’s wikipedia page:

        Doll failed the mathematics scholarship from the effects of drinking too much of the College’s own-brewed beer the night before.[4] He subsequently chose to study medicine at St Thomas’s Hospital Medical School, King’s College London from where he graduated in 1937. Doll was a socialist, and one of the significant figures in the Socialist Medical Association whose campaign helped lead to the creation of Britain’s postwar National Health Service. He joined the Royal College of Physicians after the outbreak of World War II and served for much of the war as a part of the Royal Army Medical Corps on a hospital ship as a medical specialist.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    My Opinion,its really quite simple. They told me your now a criminal to do what you always did before and I said FUCK YOU its war baby and you done messed with wrong SOB!

  8. Bill says:

    I was born in England and have lived in England ever since, 52 years, and I have always regarded London as the armpit of England. But oddly, or not, like you I now have a feeling of being woken up to a different level of understanding. It appears most if not all of the things I have taken for granted over those years are fake. It’s rather refreshing if I am being honest to read posts like this where others relate going through the same process.
    If the state/expert/leaders/authority demands either say NO or ask WHY.
    Question everything.

  9. nisakiman says:

    Yes, I think living overseas as a child does change your perception of life. My awakening years (from 4 – 7) were spent in Singapore, as my father, an officer in the R.E.M.E., was posted there for nearly three years. Thus my first awareness and understanding of the world around me was of Asian culture and equatorial climate. To be honest, I never really settled when we returned to UK, and the only focus of my school years was getting out and travelling. Hence my quitting school at 16 and almost immediately hitting the road, thumb out, heading off to Asia. And even though it was back in the 50s that we lived in Singapore and I was very young, whenever I return to SE Asia, it’s like putting on an old jacket. It feels comfortable and familiar. The smells, the sounds, the chaotic maelstrom of street life, they all feel right. I never feel as if I’m in an alien environment.

    I also think the culture shift from the freedom of movement that tropical climes allow to the strictures of a much more regimented way of life in (a very cold) UK engendered (or perhaps just exacerbated) a rebelliousness and tendency to question authority. Whatever, when I look back on my life, I know that those early years shaped my approach and attitude. I’ve never trusted ‘experts’. I’ve always questioned authority (which caused me endless problems within the institution of grammar school), and I’m sure it’s why I’m here commenting, along with other members of the ‘awkward squad’ who refuse to be gulled by the authoritarians who would dictate our lives.

    • Frank Davis says:

      whenever I return to SE Asia, it’s like putting on an old jacket. It feels comfortable and familiar. The smells, the sounds, the chaotic maelstrom of street life, they all feel right. I never feel as if I’m in an alien environment.

      I know the feeling, although not in respect of SE Asia.

  10. Furor Teutonicus says:

    XX And Sir Richard Doll was just another witch doctor when he claimed that smoking causes cancer, and may as well have been wearing a grass skirt with a bone through his nose. Because nobody knows what cancer is.XX

    I had a similar “experience” in the 80s, when it was declared; “We don’t know what causes AIDS, but it can not be passed on by shaking a patients hand”….or similar.

    HOW do the KNOW? They have JUST told us they do NOT know!!!

    From that poiunt on, I started taking science with MORE than a small pinch of salt. (Oooops Salt… OoErrr Madam!)

  11. Walt says:

    Was I AWOL, Frank, the day you explained the reason for your port-to-port childhood? or did you never say, in which case, I’ll assume you had a reason and won’t ask. Otherwise, I’m curious.

    I’d also imagine that all those dramatic scene changes would have changed your (anybody’s) sense of relationship to Place; the environment is ever-changing; the Constant, then, is yourself. And from there, given (and it’s a large given) given a brain and some inherent guts, comes self-trust. self-reliance and, from there, healthy skepticism.

    I’m trying to think aloud about where my own orneriness came from but I wind up thinking it’s at least half inherent. Did I ever trust adults (the pregenitors of “experts”) ? Certainly not in general and likely not a whole lot in particular. It always “depended” on whether their pronouncements struck some internal chord. I trusted my father, thought what he said was gospel and can’t say he misled me, but from the age of consciousness, thought my mother–her values, ideas, ideas of right and wrong were themselves dead wrong and trusted my own barometer instead, “disobeying” her always with a clear conscience. Then too, when I was a kid, we moved a lot too (tho only from one small California town to another, and then from neighborhood to neighborhood w/i some places) and later to the sharp cultural change of New York. I also spent some time boarding with an aunt and uncle wealthy enough to have a chauffeur and the standard issue Phillippino house boy of Hollywood cliche and took that with as much nonchalance as the relative skrimping in my own family. I also learned that while in one new school, I was, for unknown reasons, instantly the most popular kid in the class, in another, a few months later, i was totally disregarded and since I was the same person, I believed neither one; just thought that other people’s opinions were…silly and not to be taken seriously. And now I’m rambling dully…

    • Frank Davis says:

      My father worked for Cable and Wireless, a global communications company. He started out on cable ships that laid and repaired undersea cables, and when he got married he moved to the shore staff that operated the cable stations at the ends of the cables, sending and receiving telegrams. I suppose that many of these were temporary assignments, because we stayed in some places for only a few months. In the end, I guess that he secured more permanent postings as he got promoted, and so we spent most time in Brazil (although we moved around there too).

      I also had the experience of arriving at a new school and instantly becoming the most popular kid in the class – although the novelty wore off fairly rapidly..

  12. Frank Davis says:

    We’re currently getting spammed by “jon smith”. He posted one comment yesterday, which I let stand, but he has now posted about 20 today. That’s called spamming, and it disrupts the thread. If he wants to express his views in a single comment, I’ll let it stand. But I’m not accepting dozens of comments.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      John Smith is likely an ASHit hit and run loser………….The queens speech marked a new begining of the end of the TC agenda and they blame you and us! They cant defend against direct critism without finding a new name and a grant to attach to a new piece of junk science or a slanted poll which we discover on each and everyone were set up!

      They havent given up and wont,what they will do is cower away and recreate new non-profit groups to replace the ones they ruined during this latest fight for prohibition and control. Id look for Bill Gates,Bloomberg and a few others to set up these new fake charities to build good public cause names over the comming decades like the ACS,ALA,AHA did until their hidden agenda is brought to bear yet again……………Its a 100 years old bait and switch tactic…………….Im your friend and will save your loved ones lives now donate me your entire wealth upon your death and if you dont the government will take it all thru the death tax and give it to me anyway or via the inheritance tax!

    • beobrigitte says:

      We’re currently getting spammed by “jon smith”.
      As already said, I was looking forward for jon smith to cite INDEPENDENT research….

      As we all know, the biggest fear for the anti-smokers is a growing smoker’s community and they try their best disrupting conversations, so I do agree with Frank’s step. Jon smith’s view is his personal right; he just must learn that people may not share it.
      (I sure hope he threw his lap top away; now it is contaminated with this soooooooo deadly “third-, fourth,- idiotic hand smoke!!!)

      Harley, they are so pissed off at recent losses they are taking it out on pregnant women

      I read this yesterday just before I visited a friend in hospital who just had a baby.
      This carbon monoxide test has found to be useless as it shows far too many false positives. (The anti-smokers then continue to accuse the mother-to-be of lying.)

      ” … We would like (Nice) to make clear in any advice to women that midwives should offer the test but that ultimately the final decision must lie with the woman.”

      Pregnant women will simply refuse this nonsense test.

      What the anti-smokers do can be classed as child abuse; they are not interested in “saving” any children; they pursue their utopian goal of a “smoke-free world” by ANY means. I doubt that we will find one anti-smoker in e.g. Syria. Anti-smokers’ lobbying brought Syria a smoking ban but since there is a war there, they no longer appear to be interested of saving children.

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Rockefeller also created the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, and the American Lung Association in this eugenics framework)

    Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid history. The three antismoking crusades of the last century have been eugenics-driven. In eugenics, health is erroneously reduced to an entirely biological phenomenon and where a self-installed elite attempt to engineer/breed a “better” human herd. In addition to a genetic aspect, eugenics views tobacco and alcohol as racial poisons needing to be eradicated (negative eugenics). Antismoking was rife in early-1900s USA. Smoking and tobacco sales were banned in quite a number of American states.
    http://www.americanheritage.com/artic….
    Dillow (1981) notes that the bulk of antismoking claims were fraudulent and inflammatory. Dillow fails to note that the antismoking crusade of the early-1900s USA was eugenics-driven: Eugenics was mainstream in the USA at this time. At the turn of the last century, eugenics was mainstream in the USA, the UK, some European countries, and a number of Scandinavian countries. The USA appears to be the most prominent. The mega-wealthy in the USA (e.g., Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Kellogg) were supporters and funders of eugenics (and antismoking, anti-alcohol) – and still are. Rockefeller and Ford were also prominent supporters of Nazi eugenics. (Rockefeller also created the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, and the American Lung Association in this eugenics framework). Rockefeller and Ford had trade agreements with the Nazis through the 1930s

    We defeat them and they will return yet again at another time and place,we must and should find a way to inform comming generations of the threat! Unless their hope is the natural instinct of freedom and liberty bore into each of us by divine right!

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    Found this post from Carol T

    And your phony smoking costs are all lies, too. They’re based on falsely pretending that costs paid by smokers were paid by “society,” that diseases caused by infection are caused by smoking, and that non-smokers’ health costs don’t exist at all – e.g., the CDC’s SAMMEC. Table 1 gives the real bottom line: At age 20, smokers’ lifetime health costs will total 220k Euros, obese peoples’ costs will total 250k Euros, and the “Healthy Living” will cost 281k Euros.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225430/

    Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/mailbag/tim-shanahan-smoking-in-taverns-isn-t-necessarily-over/article_7e91fe3c-096d-5ac9-a576-b8f13754f1df.html#ixzz2TBMAn6d7
    Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    Obesity is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with high medical expenditures. It has been

  15. Senzar says:

    Jon Smith? As in bitter (and twisted)!

    Here’s someone you may not have come across before Frank but I think you might like the science regarding the prevalent Co2 lunacy.

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/

    The Earth-Venus comparison seems to me (a non scientist) a perfectly simple solution. But then, what do I know? Be forewarned that he does not suffer fools gladly as you can see from the comments!

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    Opposition is growing everywhere against the smoking bans!

    St. Charles County Mo. Republican Central Committee votes to oppose all smoking bans

    In Backroom

    By Jo Mannies, Beacon political reporter

    12:45 am on Mon, 05.13.13

    St. Charles County Republicans say they’re opposed to any sort of smoking bans, because they improperly “restrict private business owners’ rights to allow the use of a legal product on their privately-owned property.”

    Here’s the text of the St. Charles GOP’s resolution:

    “The St. Charles County Republican Central Committee opposes legislation that creates disparate treatment of competing private businesses throughout St. Charles County by prohibiting smoking.

    “The St. Charles County Republican Central Committee believes that government should allow businesses to choose whether to accommodate smoking customers or not, and allow customers to choose whether or not to patronize smoking or non-smoking establishments. To do otherwise infringes upon the peoples’ freedom.

    “Therefore, the St. Charles County Republican Central Committee, while not condoning or promoting smoking, urges elected officials throughout St. Charles County to vote against measures to prohibit smoking in privately owned businesses.”

    http://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/30854/stchas_smoking_gop_051313

    1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee. The last statewide smoking ban was repealed in Utah in 1923……………….43 out of 45 states had smoking bans before!

    Repeals are comming soon!

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    Nannying Tyrants
    Folks, I need your help. I’m working on an anti-nanny music project and I need a woman is fluent in Spanish and access to a microphone to record a few lines for me. Must be comfortable with swearing. This is a bit urgent, so please, please share this. I can be contacted … via Facebook. Either would be fine. Many thanks in advance.

    [note: I also posted this request in the Friends of FOREST Group — I hope that isn’t a problem. — Jay]

    https://www.facebook.com/nannying.tyrants?hc_location=stream

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    Rand Paul: Obama is working with ‘anti-American globalists plot[ting] against our Constitution.’
    Thats my man and Ive met him 2 times now!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/rand-paul-obama-is-working-with-anti-american-globalists-plotting-against-our-constitution/

  19. harleyrider1978 says:

    The New York Times calls Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) one of the Republican Party’s “rising stars.” The Daily Beast says he’s “a smoother, more pragmatic political operator” than his father, former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex.). All that seems true. So riddle me this: What’s the upside for Paul to put his name on e-mails like this one, which landed in my inbox this morning?

    It’s one thing for no-name pols to work on the fringes. But Paul, at this point, has a lot to lose. Yet here he is, suggesting the current president of the United States is working with “anti-American globalists plot[ting] against our Constitution.” And for what?

    Here’s the whole e-mail. It’s on behalf of the National Association on Gun Rights, and it leads you to this Paul-centric splash page.

    Dear fellow Patriot,

    Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

    You see, only hours after re-election, Barack Obama immediately made a move for gun control…

    On November 7th, his administration gleefully voted at the UN for a renewed effort to pass the “Small Arms Treaty.”

    But after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut — and anti-gun hysteria in the national media reaching a fever pitch — there’s no doubt President Obama and his anti-gun pals believe the timing has never been better to ram through the U.N.’s global gun control crown jewel.

    I don’t know about you, but watching anti-American globalists plot against our Constitution makes me sick.

    This Spring, the United Nations went back into session to finalize their radical so-called “Small Arms Treaty.”

    With the treaty finalized, a full U.S. Senate ratification showdown could come any time President Obama chooses and there will be very little time to fight back.

    If we’re to succeed, we must fight back now.

    That’s why I’m helping lead the fight to defeat the UN “Small Arms Treaty” in the United States Senate.

    And it’s why I need your help today.

    Will you join me by taking a public stand against the UN “Small Arms Treaty” and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey right away?

    Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

    So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps.

    But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

    You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies:*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

    *** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

    *** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

    *** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

    I’m sure I don’t have to tell you this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

    Ever since its founding 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.

    To the petty dictators and one-world socialists who control the UN, the United States of America isn’t a “shining city on a hill” — it’s an affront to their grand designs for the globe.

    These anti-gun globalists know that as long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.

    And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.

    That’s why I was so excited to see the National Association for Gun Rights leading the fight to stop the UN “Small Arms Treaty!”

    Will you join them by going on record AGAINST global gun control and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey today?

    The truth is there’s no time to waste.

    You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.

    The fact is the last thing the gun-grabbers at the UN and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical agenda.

    They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the UN Small Arms Treaty into law since the mid-1990s.

    But now time may not be on our side.

    And worse… the UN Small Arms Treaty is no longer the only UN scheme threatening our gun rights.

    More and more of the UN’s radical agenda is slipping through covertly, under the cover of domestic legislation.

    Not long ago, Obama told Sarah Brady from the anti-gun Brady Campaign, “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

    In fact, Hillary Clinton’s State Department recently bragged that Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious are implementations of the UN’s anti-gun agenda!

    And I’d place a wager that Obama’s M1 Rifle Re-importation Ban was also the UN’s agenda dutifully executed by his administration.

    Anti-gun UN policy that NEVER received a single vote in the United States Congress!

    The UN met recently to pass a final version of the “Small Arms Treaty” to be sent for ratification by the Senate.

    So if you and I are going to defeat them, we have to turn the heat up on Washington now before it’s too late!

    1. Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the supreme law of the land?

    2. Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your Constitutional rights must be opposed?

    If you said “Yes!” to these questions, please sign the survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.

    But I hope you’ll do more than just sign your survey today.

    With your help, the National Association for Gun Rights will continue to turn up the heat on targeted Senators who are working to implement the UN “Small Arms Treaty.”

    Direct mail. Phones. E-mail. Blogs. Guest editorials. Press conferences. Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits. The whole nine yards.

    Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.

    But that’s not easy, and we may not have much time.

    In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat the UN’s schemes, pro-gun Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!

    So please put yourself on record AGAINST the UN Gun Ban by signing NAGR’s Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

    But along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.

    And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

    Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.

    For Freedom,

    Rand Paul
    United States Senator

  20. harleyrider1978 says:

    No mention of the WHO FCTC TREATY but we all know he knows and thats the kinda crap he means!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Dec
      6
      “Obama secretly gives billions to UN global warming” Senator Inhofe

      Hello, I am Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and chief critic of President Obama’s far left green agenda
      Over the past decade, I have been leading the charge in Washington to make sure the global warming hoax is exposed. A big part of that effort has been putting the spotlight on what takes place at the UN’s annual global warming conferences. While I have been unable to travel to the last few conferences, I have counted on groups like CFACT to provide “on the ground” reports. This year’s UN conference is in Doha, Qatar and I’m pleased that Lord Christopher Monckton is there working with his partners, including CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker and Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com. I’m certainly looking forward to the release of Climate Depot’s new report that debunks the alarmists’ extreme weather claims.
      The last time I attended a global warming conference was in 2009, when I spent only three hours at their gathering in Copenhagen. I arrived just after President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Senator Kerry promised world leaders that the United States would act on cap-and-trade. I was in Copenhagen as a one-man truth squad: I said that the United States Senate would never ratify the Kyoto treaty or pass cap-and-trade. I was right, and now even the liberal media is admitting that these conferences are pointless. As Der Spiegel put it, the conference in Doha is “turning into a farce.” The UK Guardian said that “Doha is a byword for stalemate and failure” and the New York Times reported that after the failure of the Rio+20 conference held in June, “more and more people may be ignoring these global confabs.”

      It’s not surprising that this year’s conference has been ignored. Remember EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admitted to me that EPA’s global warming regulations are based primarily on the now exposed Climategate science of the completely discredited UN IPCC. The Atlantic Monthly said of Climategate “the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.” And the UK Telegraph wrote that “This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation.”
      Of course, the focus of this year’s global warming conference – like all the conferences before – is not the environment. It’s about one thing: spreading the wealth around. As the Associated Press reported, “one of the main challenges will be raising climate aid for poor countries at a time when budgets are strained by financial turmoil.”
      Three years ago, President Obama helped create a United Nations Green Slush Fund that would redistribute over $100 billion from developed countries to developing countries. While he has been racking up huge deficits and talking up tax increases, the President has already sent billions of American taxpayer dollars to the United Nations – and he’s managed to do it quietly so that no one will notice.
      How many billions have already been handed over in the last three years? It’s hard to tell. There appears to be little in the way of transparency. Bloomberg reports that the European Union, the United States, Japan and other developed nations paid out in the range of $23 to $34 billion.
      Of course, this is just the beginning. United Nations Climate Chief Christiana Figueres explained her job this way: “It is the most inspiring job in the world because what we are doing here is we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science. So it’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.” This is the top UN Climate chief: she sees herself as the overseer of “transforming” the lives of everyone on the planet.
      At the global warming conference in Milan, I asked an African delegate who I knew why he had attended and he said, “It has nothing to do with the science; it’s because it’s the biggest party of the year.” It’s time to put an end to these lavish, absurd global warming parties and focus on the real problems that we face.

  21. gimper30 says:

    The greatest influence on my philosophy and opinions was the 4 years of undergraduate life in College. This was from 1960 to 1964 before the great social upheaval of the middle and late 60s.
    I came from a blue collar family in a blue collar Steel town. College was an incredible mind expanding experience both from the standpoint of the people I met and the professors who taught me to apply logic and reason to all matters–take nothing for granted. I learned that following the crowd and jumping on bandwagons may have been the easy way to fit in but was not necessarily seeking the right answers. To this day, I still question all the things around me. To my friends, I am a true “contrarian”.marching to my own drumbeat. Frank, you know how I feel about smoking…..someday the headline will read that smoking itself has nothing to do with anything. Period!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      someday the headline will read that smoking itself has nothing to do with anything. Period!
      It pretty well does now. Simply put they aint got a bit of proof on anything!

  22. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ok I had some fun with the ACS and their cookout in louisville today!!!

    Karen Johnson shared an event.
    We’re firing up the grill at 6:00, everyone is invited! See details below..
    Relay for Life BUNCO!
    May 13 at 6:30pm in EDT
    Hillview Community Center in Louisville, Kentucky

    Invite Friends · You’re going
    Like · · Share · 23 minutes ago ·

    2 people like this.
    Kimberly Ayn Privette-Jackson wish i could be there!:(
    12 minutes ago via mobile · Like
    John Davidson Since we have the Louisville Smoking ban and its second hand smoke justifications for purported harm and the ACS lobbyies all over Kentucky for such bans and Bar-b-ques are notoriously producing millions of equal cigarette chemcials from these cookouts I must insist we cancel this event!

    “Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests.
    A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes.

    Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer.

    The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3106039.stm
    BBC NEWS | Health | Barbecue cancer warning
    news.bbc.co.uk
    Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests.
    9 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview
    John Davidson So for the safety of our membership please cancel this event and instead have a complete vegan diet less the smoke! Or lets all vote to repeal the smoking ban and admit second hand smoke truly harms no one!
    8 minutes ago · Like
    John Davidson Don’t fret over list of cancer ‘risks’
    http://www.dispatch.com/…/…r-list-ofcancer-risks.html

    [[“We are being bombarded” with messages about the dangers posed by common things in our lives, yet most exposures “are not at a level that are going to cause cancer,” said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society’s deputy chief medical officer.
    Linda Birnbaum agrees. She is a toxicologist who heads the government agency that just declared styrene, an ingredient in fiberglass boats and Styrofoam, a likely cancer risk.
    “Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam,” she said. Levels of styrene that leach from food containers “are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting,” where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.
    Carcinogens are things that can cause cancer, but that label doesn’t mean that they will or that they pose a risk to anyone exposed to them in any amount at any time.]]

    Now,Im glad to see the ACS admitting to the dose response relationship finally!

    So now we understand why the following is factual:

    [[are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting,” where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.]]

    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.

    [[ETS between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers]]

    http://www.citeulike.org/user/vmarthia/article/7458828

    [[OSHA the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded]]

    JUST AMAZING ISNT IT

    7 minutes ago · Like
    John Davidson A letter from a doctor on shs

    Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.

    I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.

    To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights.

    Respectfully,
    Robert E. Madden, M.D

    6 minutes ago · Like
    John Davidson But after this study came out I suggest we continue with the cookout!……………This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

    146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

    OSHA ON SECOND HAND SMOKE……………..

    According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..

    They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.

    They concluded that:

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.
    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds
    vitals.nbcnews.com
    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new…See More
    3 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview
    John Davidson So now we know we can safely be in hundreds of thousands of chemical coatins from the same chemicals as cigarettes that come from the bar-b-ques we do and still donate our lungs! Perhaps we should invite the ALA to the party and let them hand out donor cards for lungs!
    a few seconds ago · Like

  23. harleyrider1978 says:
  24. harleyrider1978 says:

    Courts Say UCLA can NOT Fire Professor for Telling the Truth

    by Stephen Frank on 03/24/2013 · Comments (0) Print This Post Print This Post

    A professor at UCLA caught a “scientist” who lied about his degrees and his studies. UCLA kept the liar (in fact the State used the liars report on climate to kill tens of thousands of jobs. But, UCLA FIRED the truth tell.

    “The first decision denied the core of the defendants’ motion to dismiss a case brought by Professor James Enstrom, a case I’ve written about before. Enstrom not only blew the whistle on junk science behind recent proposed California diesel emissions restrictions, he discovered the state’s lead “scientist” had purchased his degree from a fictitious “Thornhill University” and that many members of the state’s Scientific Review Panel had overstayed term limits by decades. While the fake scientist received only a short suspension after his fraud was discovered, UCLA not only fired Enstrom, it also looted his research account of tens of thousands of dollars and failed to pay him any salary for more than a year.

    Enstrom sued, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, and yesterday a district court allowed the case to go forward on all claims and against most of the defendants. “

    See the full story by clicking on the blue headline

    capoliticalnews.com/2013/03/24/courts-say-ucla-can-not-fire-professor-for-telling-the-truth/

  25. harleyrider1978 says:

    Professor Evin has been very busy and giving pharma down the road!

    Half of drugs prescribed in France useless or dangerous, say two specialists

    The doctors claim that the state wastes money on unnecessary medicine that they blame for up to 20,000 deaths annually

    Professor Even studied 50 clinical trials of cholesterol which showed that statins made no difference to the frequency of cardiovascular disease-related illnesses.

    Ask yourself these questions. We are in the 21st century, yet, a) is there a cure for cancer or b) a cure for heart disease or stroke? No! Big Pharma and health professionals — including researchers — rely on unfounded fear and faulty studies to keep their jobs.

    Professor Even admitted — when debunking second-hand smoking — that he had to hold to ‘certain positions’ in order to be able to work in his field.

    Professor Philippe Even’s The Truth about Cholesterol

    It appears the doctors of the last 2 generations after retiring are wiping nannys ass and putting them to bed! Permanantly!

  26. harleyrider1978 says:

    Outdoor Smoking to be Banned throughout England?
    Posted on May 13, 2013 by admin

    F2C warned you last year that the devolution of Public Health to local councils was going to impact severely on freedoms. We also fervently encouraged you to get re-involved locally. What we didn’t notice was that a creeping insidious mean little law was introduced in last week’s Queen’s Speech, which will probably have even more impact than the devolution of Public Health.

    This is the ‘Public Spaces Protection Order’. A big hat tip to Josie Appleton from spikedonline for the information, and to F2C’s ‘Tony’ for spotting it.

    Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) will replace alcohol-control zones (Designated Public Space Orders). These new, much broader orders can be used to ban any activity and can also impose positive conditions, requiring people to do something rather than simply refrain from an activity. The local authority can obtain this order if it judges that the activity in question has a ‘detrimental effect’ on the ‘quality of life’ in an area; or, if the activity has not yet been carried out, that it is likely to be carried out and is likely to have a detrimental effect. Given local authorities’ apparent dislike of most social activities, this could have a wide application.

    This could make the little Stoney Stratford parish council attempt at banning open air smoking look like a fairy tale.

    The new legislation can and will be seized upon by every tinpot public health dictator throughout the country. We can look forward to bans on drinking, smoking, and eating unhealthy food in public.

    The new health era is coming to your area soon. Get ready.
    http://www.f2c.org.uk/blog/?p=280#comment-27094

No need to log in

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.