Misinformation, Or Simply More Lies and Deceptions?

Misinformation, Or Simply More Lies and Deceptions?

    This Committee for the Constitution has written extensively about government, its bureaucrats and politicians, feeding the public a steady diet of untruth and misinformation aided and abetted by the propaganda of the liberal media. Not only is the economic and fiscal crisis the direct responsibility of Congress led by the executive branch, the violation of their offices of “honor and trust” extends far beyond simply error or incorrect decisions. This is willful and knowing conduct relying on lies and deceptions in specific violation of the original intention of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the several states. The recent and on-going attempts of Congress and the Obama administration to exempt Congress and aides from the disaster of Obamacare clearly signals and evinces unconstitutional intention. Adding to the indictments are the previously discussed violations of our Second Amendment rights, the conspiracy and fraud of Soros’s Petro Brasilia collusion windfall, the XL pipeline veto benefiting Obama’s supporter Warren Buffet, the Pigford fraud perpetrated by Obama’s people, Bengazi, and the list goes on and on. The real tragedy is that such government failure and crime is tolerated by the public electing those so unworthy of trust.

    Whether it is about any of the above or any other topic of failed political action, moving beyond reason by ignoring or displacing the truths of science and history will lead any political entity to ultimate failure. The Framers and Founders were realists. “Relying on divine Providence”, they moved in the truths of science and history as they were aware of them at the time.

    The article below cites the preponderance of evidence from an economist relating to our Second Amendment rights. Likewise, there are similar volumes of truth published on everything from global warming to energy independence to healthcare reform. Every American wanting to reclaim our heritage should read Beyond Reason and The Attack on America to understand that those same fundamental truths recognized over two centuries ago in Independence Hall are now just as relevant in this time and in these circumstances of a Federal bureaucracy unchecked by the states united. Demanding that every politician at every level of government also read them and be willing to sign a contract to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution would solve not only our economic and fiscal crisis but would accomplish all that the Preamble describes.

    If every patriot will pass this message on to all on their eMail lists, those receiving will do the same, and so on and so forth, the truth will be heard.

    Thank you for protecting and defending the original intention of the Constitution of the United States. May America bless God.


Ann Coulter Letter

Coulter: America’s Most Feared Economist

    Some nut Dutch professor produces dozens of gag studies purportedly finding that thinking about red meat makes people selfish and that litter leads to racism — and no one bothers to see if he even administered questionnaires before drawing these grand conclusions about humanity.

    But Lott’s decades-long studies of concealed-carry laws have been probed, poked and re-examined dozens of times. (Most of all by Lott himself, who has continuously re-run the numbers controlling for thousands of factors.)

    Tellingly, Lott immediately makes all his underlying data and computer analyses available to critics — unlike, say, the critics. He has sent his data and work to 120 researchers around the world. By now, there have been 29 peer-reviewed studies of Lott’s work on the effect of concealed-carry laws. Eighteen confirm Lott’s results, showing a statistically significant reduction in crime after concealed-carry laws are enacted. Ten show no harm, but no significant reduction in crime. Only one peer-reviewed study even purported to show any negative effect: a temporary increase in aggravated assaults. Then it turned out this was based on a flawed analysis by a liberal activist professor: John Donohue, whose name keeps popping up in all fake studies purporting to debunk Lott.

    In 1997, a computer crash led to the loss of Lott’s underlying data. Fortunately, he had previously sent this data to his critics — professors Dan Black, Dan Nagin and Jens Ludwig. When Lott asked if they would mind returning it to him to restore his files, they refused. (One former critic, Carlisle Moody, conducted his own analysis of Lott’s data and became a believer. He has since co-authored papers with Lott.)

    Unable to produce a single peer-reviewed study to discredit Lott’s conclusions, while dozens of studies keep confirming them, liberals have turned to their preferred method of simply sneering at Lott and neurotically attaching “discredited” to his name. No actual discrediting ever takes place. But liberals think as long as they smirk enough, their work is done.

    Average readers hear that Lott has been “discredited” and assume that there must have been some debate they didn’t see. To the contrary, the leading source for the claim that Lott’s research doesn’t hold up, left-wing zealot Donohue, has been scheduled to debate Lott, one-on-one, at the University of Chicago twice back in 2005. Both times, Donohue canceled at the last minute.

    Donohue accuses Lott of libel for pointing this out. Suggestion for Mr. Donohue: Instead of writing columns insisting you’ve been libeled, wouldn’t it be better just to agree to a debate? It’s been eight years!

    Scratch any claim that Lott’s research has been “debunked” and you will find Donohue, his co-author and plagiarist Ian Ayres, or one of the three “scholars” mentioned above — the ones so committed to a search for the truth that they refused to return Lott’s data to him. (Imagine the consequences if Lott had been forced to admit to plagiarism, as Ayres has.)

    Donohue’s previous oeuvre includes the racist claim that the crime rate declined in the 1990s as a result of abortion being legalized in the ’70s. (Nearly 40 percent of the abortions since the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade were of black children.) This study was discredited (not “discredited”) by many economists, including two at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, who pointed out that Donohue’s study made critical mistakes, such as failing to control for variables such as the crack cocaine epidemic. When the Reserve economists reran Donohue’s study without his glaring mistakes, they found that there was “no evidence in (Donohue’s) own data” for an abortion-crime link.

    Curiously, the failure to account for the crack epidemic is one of Donohue’s complaints with Lott’s study. It worked so well against his own research study he thought he’d try it against Lott. The difference is: Lott has, in fact, accounted for the crack epidemic, over and over again, in multiple regressions, all set forth in his book.

    Donohue and plagiarist Ayres took a nasty swipe at Lott in the Stanford Law Review so insane that the editors of the Review — Donohue’s own students — felt compelled to issue a subsequent “clarification” saying: “Ayres and Donohue’s Reply piece is incorrect, unfortunate, and unwarranted.” When you have to be corrected on your basic anti-gun facts by an ABC correspondent — as Donohue was by “Nightline” correspondent John Donvan in a 2008 televised panel discussion — you might be a few shakes away from a disinterested scholar.

    But the easily fooled New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has repeatedly called Lott “discredited,” based on a 2003 article by charlatans Donohue and Ayres — a non-peer-reviewed law review article. In a 2011 column, for example, Kristof dismissed Lott’s book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” with the bald assertion that “many studies have now debunked that finding.”

    The details of the chicanery of Donohue, plagiarist Ayres, as well as all of Lott’s other critics, are dealt with point by point in the third edition of Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime. There, and in a number of published articles by Lott and others, you can see how his critics cherry-picked the data, made basic statistical errors, tried every regression analysis imaginable to get the results they want and lied about Lott’s work (such as Donohue’s claim that he neglected to account for the crack epidemic).

    Suffice it to say that of the 177 separate analyses run by all these critics, only seven show a statistically significant increase in crime after the passage of concealed-carry laws, while 90 of their own results show a statistically significant drop in crime — and 80 show no difference.

    “Discredited” in liberal lingo means, “Ignore this study; it didn’t come out well for us.”

trea·son  [tree-zuhn]

1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign
2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Question: On the Amendment (Inhofe Amdt. No. 139 )
Vote Number: 91                                                         Vote Date: March 23, 2013, 04:30 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2                                        Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 139 to S.Con.Res. 8 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
Vote Counts:  YEAs (voting to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution) 53
                        NAYs (violating oath of office by failing to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution) 46
                        Not Voting  1
NAYs — 46 (oath of office?)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

         Is not violating one’s oath of an office of honor and trust not by definition to be called treason?

No argument for Obamacare’s repeal can top the simple fact that Members of Congress do not want it to apply to them.

    Instead of working on bills that would help the economy, right now the politicians are working on an Internet sales tax bill and a comprehensive immigration bill offering amnesty.

The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744)—commonly called the “Gang of Eight bill”delivers nothing new—other than the promise of spending a lot more money and running up our debt. ….Our government could cooperate more effectively with Mexico and the border states. Congress could modernize our legal immigrant and non-immigrant programs, including effective temporary worker programs. The government could enforce our workplace and immigration laws.  ….the promise of border security in this case is merely an excuse for a bloated bill that would promise anything to push amnesty, regardless of cost or practicality.