It turns out the NAACP is fine with killing/aborting Black babies, especially through Planned Parenthood. What happened to MLKJr’s words “judge people not by the color of their skin, but on the content of their character?”

MLKJr knew if America was to be great, everyone of every race must be able to share in the same opportunities. In legalizing abortion in 1974, the Supreme Court ruled a group of people, specifically children still unborn, were not entitled any legal protection at all. King’s dream became distinguished.

Legalized abortion gives people the ability to decide which kids are worthy of living, and which are not. How can Americans live with themselves, when they do not allow Black babies in the womb the basic right of life listed first in the Declaration?      

America has achieved equality of many things. Actual equality treats all human life the same. This is regardless of race, growth stage, or dependency condition. Nineteen million dead aborted Blacks later, that dream by King has become squelched for millions of Americans. Blacks only make up 12.4% of the total population, but are 30% of America’s abortions.

If MLKJr were alive today, he would be shockingly aghast with these racial injustices occurring every day. Any abortion is abhorrent, but why would there be such a compulsion behind eliminating the young Black community?

The Department of Health (NYC) found Black abortions as a disproportionate number situated in majority-black neighborhoods. Shockingly, this is true at the location of most of the nation’s abortion centers. Black Americans are a prime target of the abortion industry. It’s been determined 60% of NYC’s abortions are done on Blacks. Teens in NYC are aborted at a shocking 72% rate.

In the city of Philadelphia, their Department of Health has witnessed half of all their Black babies being aborted. The list goes on. You never hear about Congress's investment in a group gleefully accepting donations only for Black baby abortions. Abortion seems concerned with race directly. Journalist Randy Hall knows this is true, when he realized for all of PP’s ‘documented’ clinics, 62.5% "were located in cities having a higher black population than the state."

King’s words go on deaf ears for those who voted against California’s Prop ‘209’, Nebraska’s Civil Rights Initiative ‘424’, Washington’s (State) ‘200’, or Michigan’s Prop ‘2’. All of these proposed laws outlaw judging skin color for college admission, employment, and giving government contracts. King understood these should never enter the equation. He demanded total equality.

Pro-life activist Alveda King, often repeated her Uncle King was strongly pro-life. His stance on Black genocide by abortion (over 18 million), would have dwarfed the heinous 3,446 Black hangings done by MLKJr’s time.

It’s known MLKJr and the NAACP are at opposite ends of the spectrum concerning PP’s multitude of abortions (black and white). The NAACP already opposes Black advancement on a myriad of issues:  Medicaid and self-sufficiency (Blacks: 12% of population, 30% on Medicaid), lawsuits against charter schools and vouchers (by NAACP in NY this year), giving parents choices with vouchers and/or tax credits, methods for eliminating Black poverty in America, same-sex marriage (nothing to do with civil rights), and pro-life stances (despite 1/2 Black pregnancies being aborted).

In fact, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s daughter Bernice firmly knew he would have been against gay marriage.

In 1958, Roy Wilkins (Executive Director/NAACP) conflicted repeatedly with MLKJr and other leaders over strategic decisions within the Civil Rights movement.

The NAACP has been erroneously skewed with Democrats since MLKJr.  But NAACP has long since parted ways with MLKJr’s principles. Unfortunately King is not still with us to severely reprimand the NAACP for their gross political leanings, and skewed principles for the Black race.

Something must be done fairly quickly, for the Black people must have hope for future survival with the rate of black abortions. The black race deserves better than the NAACP. Blacks’ destiny in life is total equality--all of the time. Together with MLKJr’s ideals they will achieve that. But with NAACP’s failed policies, they are destined for the dustbin of history.  

It turns out MLKJr never joined the NAACP in his lifetime. That’s the difference between great men like MLK, and those that ‘also-ran’. You can still hear the great ones’ voices after they’re gone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net. 

Photo from Wikipedia, credited to William Crochot at  http://www.science-et-vie.net. Source and public domain notice at Dartmouth Electron Microscope Facility.

One must realize a ‘movement’s’ objective before they protest themselves, join the group, or even support their actions watching them on TV. What is their long term goal? Is yours the same? Are their protestations doing any good? Pollen particles may be an apt description.

‘Occupy’ protests, at over 30 cities countrywide, have been on a rampage. But comparisons of Tea Party gatherings, and Occupy protests are imminent. The Tea Party does not like the socialistic tendencies of the Obama regime. The Occupiers screamed “exploitation by capitalism”.  At [workers.org] Workers World Party, you’ll see signs saying, “A job is a right; capitalism doesn’t work”.

When asked why Occupiers were there, most implied ‘tough economic times and employment opportunities’. None of them responded with Obama’s higher unemployment rate, additional onerous regulations, higher taxes, or pushing for a socialist state. That is nothing the Founding Fathers had in mind.                 

Instead, protesters sent the message: “this is our right to protest, assemble, and discuss world economic injustices.” However, the protestors have never protested about the injustices instigated by the present administration.

To make their point, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement began breaking numerous federal laws. Fracturing judicial restraining orders, systematic sabotage, and continuous trespassing by OWS were rampant. Violence was integral in an attempt to shut down ports from California to Alaska. At one site, OWS formed a human chain, blocked a railroad to prevent a grain delivery, and shouted profanities at police. This is a direct violation of the Hobbs Act—using robbery or extortion to impede interstate commerce.

Just in the Port of Longview (Washington), OWS’s “Day of Rage” turned into a three-month ‘hissyfit’. OWS took six guards hostage, broke windows, dumped grain, and cut train brake lines. One has to wonder how many wages and business, was lost by truckers and shippers. In DC, Jim Dinegar (President/Washington Board of Trade) said the park OWS ravaged now looked like “a toxic waste dump”. In his interview, posted on YouTube, he revealed several major problems.

The Port of Oakland is requesting residents not to support any shutdown, which would steer traffic away from Oakland, and destroy any job production for their port.

Every single OWS protest has cost cities millions in police overtime with hundreds of arrests, rapes, decimated public property, broken ordinances and vagrancy laws, gross permit violations, theft, vandalism, and other criminal activity. One simply needs to view the rap sheet on OWS to view these atrocities. This barbarous behavior was common in all of OWS’s protests.

Then why was the Tea Party, since its inception, held to every minute law for staging any protest? Strange, but unlike OWS, the they had no arrests, rapes, or any of the above criminal acts. The Tea Party had “0” arrests, total. OWS had 700 arrests in one Washington march alone.

Imagine if every ‘Occupier’ voted for a president who would cut taxes for Americans, reduce expenditures and the deficit, eliminate job-killing regulations, allow US available-oil expansion, disallow Black genocide by abortion and get more Americans into the work force, an America the Founding Fathers envisioned would appear. 

Total dollar loss for all those cities because of OWS insurrection is in the billions. Total job loss is in the thousands. With Obama’s planned socialism, things would only get worse. It seems as if it is OWS’s intention is to rid America of the elites that ‘control’ Wall Street.

Hopefully protesters will realize that all Wall Street tycoons are dependent on everyday Americans. On what citizens buy, what they feel is a profitable business, what makes money for them, and what keeps the general operating machine of America running. If a business entity in America is failing, Americans stop buying, the stocks go dry, and Wall Street investors are abandoned. Normal Americans run Wall Street. OWS wants to kill that type of capitalism?

In other words, if Obama is re-elected, we get a government-run socialist state. Our Founding Fathers will not just be turning over in their grave…

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

A fear has been implanted in uninformed America--Chemophobia-the irrational fear of chemicals.

“Trike” was a normal degreaser used for various metal parts. Many panicked over the thought of getting cancer from a common degreaser used in thousands of locations. Trichloroethylene (C2HCl3) was used so frequently, that typical names such as Trichlor, Trike, Tri, or Tricky were commonplace.

The big stick was the ominous label CARCINOGEN.  Of course, the documented TLV (Threshold Limit Value) is 200ppmillion. But the ACGIH classified it as cancer “not suspected for humans”.  To date, there has been no change to the exposure limit because the EPA cannot prove TCE exposure to cause cancers.

But 1 mile away, in sight of the writer’s house, lies a Superfund Site in Skyland (Asheville, NC). CTS of Asheville manufactured hearing aids and automotive parts. Before plating, parts were cleaned using TCE. CTS, vacant since the 1990’s, still worries about TCE contamination exacerbating the cancer scare.

The  site was assessed by the EPA in 1985, 2001, and 2006. In each instance, they concluded the site did not warrant qualification as Superfund. Finally, in soils under the building, the EPA found the highest TCE concentration (830ppm).

As a result, in 2008, EPA sampled 72 private wells. Continued samples of these wells revealed no  TCE results. Today, over 105 private wells are being monitored. Seven of those are considered to have TCE. However, the acceptable lower limit for TCE is 5 pp[billion], and is significantly lower than 20 years ago (200pp[million]). But there still has been no cancer.

Back in 1930, Wikipedia reports that for 20 years, TCE was used as an inhaler (tradenames: Trilene & Trimar), and an analgesic for millions. The maximum dose was ~1000ppm. This was extensively used in obstetrics, and especially during pregnancy. Taking these dosages relieved pain, but never resulted in cancer in any of the millions inhaling it. TCE was substituted for earlier anesthetics such as chloroform and ether.

Bioassays by the National Cancer Institute showed kidney cancer in some mice and rats. It was therefore reported TCE was “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen”, based on animals. One review of kidney cancer rated obesity and cigarette smoking as higher risk factors for kidney cancer.

“Reasonably anticipated” doesn’t square with “cancer not found”. To date, ACGIH has carcinogenicity “not suspected for humans”; mutagenic—not available; teratogenic--not available; developmental—not available.

US Superfund Sites (2010). Red: National Priority List, yellow: proposed, green: deleted (usually cleaned up).

The health risks of TCE have been studied to excess.

Here is a classic example of the EPA spending almost $50 million to cleanup the Skyland, NC, Superfund Site--unnecessarily. Multiply that by ~100x for all the TCE Superfund Sites that have been, or will be, cleaned up. Could a transparent case of chemophobia be worth that to allay misguided fears?

Looking at chemicals we see daily can be eye-opening:

Ethanol (grain alcohol) is manufactured, and has an LD50 (50% rats given 7060 mg ethanol/Kg weight, was lethal dosage).

Marijuana (Delta 1-3,4 trans-tetrahydrocannabinol) has an LD50 for rats at 42 mg/Kg.

Caffeine in coffee (3,7-dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-1-H-purine-2,6-dione), and has an LD50 at 355 mg/Kg.

Exoplanet (for astronomers) is simply any planet not in this solar system.  Are any in that “goldilocks zone”, which give the capability of harboring life as we know it? Can we even see it, given its immense distance?

One must define “goldilocks zone” properly: [Habitable zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ].  That zone is considered the habitable area just far enough away from its sun, where it’s warm enough life can flourish, but not too cold to freeze water.

Astronomer Michael Hart’s computer simulations describe a habitable planet in the “goldilocks zone”. Its orbit must be almost circular, and must make the right sized orbit. Calculations indicate a 5% smaller orbit point to a runaway “greenhouse effect”, or a 1% larger orbit would have resulted in a glacier effect—the freezing of all oceans.  

The solar system must be free of large planets with elliptical orbits, which would eject or destroy other planets. Large planets with circular orbits are needed to clear out rogue asteroids that would strike inner planets much more frequently.

An inhabited planet has to be large enough to hold an atmosphere, while small enough so its gravity doesn’t crush inhabitants. The planet must have a moderate temperature. The planet must have a mass between 0.85 and 1.33 of earth’s mass, or within 2 billion years temperature variations would render the planet uninhabitable. [Extraterrestrials, Where Are They?, Second Edition, Edited by Ben Zuckerman and Michael Hart (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 217].

More importantly, a habitable planet must have some mechanism to keep CO2 from disappearing from the atmosphere. Liquid water begins a chain reaction depleting the atmosphere of CO2 [Ron Cohen, “Interplanetary Odyssey”, Science News (September 28th, 1996), p. 205].

Parts of earth’s surface continually sink where carbonate decomposes to CO2. It then recycles to the surface from volcanic activity, where it refills the atmosphere. We haven’t observed any other planet with similar tectonic activity.

Most extrasolar planets are too distant to detect their weather. Because exoplanets are invisible to the telescope “eye”, any atmosphere is examined by its infrared light, or heat. Infrared measurements are used to map the temperature of the entire surface.

But an observable exoplanet has got to be a transiting planet---it has to cross directly in front and behind its star when viewed from Earth. As an extrasolar planet passes in front of its star, it blocks out a small fraction of the star's light, and a host of information about the exoplanet can be learned: size, temperature, orbit, etcetera. Because of their location in the plane of sight relative to their orbited star, billions of exoplanets cannot be detected yet.

Over 300 extrasolar planets have been located and measured by this method, and are called “hot Jupiters” for a reason. Jupiter has many characteristics similar to exoplanets. It is a gas giant, with a crust far beneath the surrounding gas.

The Coriolis Effect cause cyclones and anti-cyclones on Earth. Greatly magnified on Jupiter, these cyclones have a revolution 2.5x faster than Earth’s cyclones. Sheer distance makes cyclones on any exoplanets invisible.

Jupiter has many atmospheric disturbances, with stronger ones absorbing the weaker ones. This may explain the size of the largest spot on Jupiter---the Great Red Spot (GRS). Man has observed this spot for almost 400 years, or as long as the telescope existed. Over two earths would fit within this storm.

The GRS is anti-cyclonic in Jupiter’s southern hemisphere, and high pressure. It seems to be about 5 miles higher than other cloud tops. A hurricane on earth rotates clockwise, being low pressure. GRS however, has been shrinking at 230 miles/yr. But at half the size of the GRS, Jupiter also has the “Oval BA”, which appeared in 2000. This was the result of three smaller spots merging. Scientists determined the Oval BA has winds up to 384 miles per hour.

Jupiter's Three Red Spots (5/23/08)

Credit NASA, ESA, M. Wong, I. de Pater (UC Berkeley), et al.

All three spots are in this image made on 5/9/98 (Hubble Space Telescope). Jupiter's spots are probably indicative of large scale climate change. It is getting warmer near the equator. The GRS is also warmer. “Warm”, in this case, translates to      -250 oF. Surrounding temperatures are colder at -256 oF. Even that difference generates questions concerning global warming. Changes in Jupiter's weather give rise to debate over perceived climate change on earth. 

In 1998, scientists decided to launch an atmospheric probe into Jupiter . It finally crumpled in 23x higher pressure than earth’s.

On Earth, anticyclones usually indicate fair weather. Jupiter's anticyclones are also high pressure centers, while cyclones are low pressure. Jupiter is shrinking in size due to gravity. Actually a heat source, it radiates 1.6x more energy than it receives from the Sun.

Juno launched from Cape Canaveral on 8/5/2011, to begin its five-year journey to Jupiter. In 2016, many questions will be answered from Juno’s Jupiter encounter.

Is climate change a normal result of CO2 activity on Jupiter? Obviously not because of CO2, with essentially “zero” content. Runaway “greenhouse effects” can occur with a 5% smaller orbit in a “goldilocks zone”, but it’s never due to CO2. It’s always due to orbiting distance.

One almost has to be an exo-atmospheric-meteorologist to understand planetary weather. Likely, the science may have changed in the past few years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

Auditors say this budget would produce $9.3 trillion in red ink over next decade. However, Budget Director Peter Orszag decided to spin the Congressional Budget Office's economic projections: “they are probably more pessimistic than those of the President”. However, Orszag acknowledged, “…if the CBO projections are correct, Obama's budget would produce unsustainable deficits.”

It’s almost impossible eliminating a $9.3 trillion dollar debt in ten decades. But Obama is not worried about total debt.

In his mind a debt will not be a problem if Socialism is there to save the day. The World Book Dictionary defines socialism as “…a system of social organization by which the major means of production and distribution, are owned, managed, or controlled by the government”. In other words, a total rejection of the US Constitution.

When the debt hits $9.3 trillion, each person in America will need to pay $31,000 just to eliminate the debt. Certainly, government can’t pay it. Obama won’t touch certain items for deficit reduction:  e.g., a) United Nations, b) 15 major US Departments (e.g., DoJ/27.2 billion/yr), c) anything providing abortions. 

Recent actions show exactly where Obama wants to go:

Obama is telling his audience that he will bypass Congress to enact as much of his agenda as possible through executive orders. He wants to implement policies through his (appointed) czars, and mandates issued by federal agencies. These strategies supposedly can get around any checks and balances established by the Constitution. Obama has already exclaimed publically: “We can't wait for Congress to do its job, so where they won't act, I will.”

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have committed unlimited amounts of taxpayer money to defend the unconstitutional Obamacare.  Now Dr. Donald Berwick (England's National Health Service, appointed to run Obamacare), says rationing is inevitable. Obamacare is an unprecedented expansion of federal power and regulation.

Young people, and first-time voters were key to Obama's victory in 2008. Stating "we can't wait," Obama announced executive plans for helping graduates with student loans. Current Unpaid student loans top $1 trillion. That debt will surely double with the relaxed restrictions. It seems obvious: News: Obama wants student loan payments lowered to shore up voting bloc .

Liberty Counsel shows many special interest groups (i.e., ACLU, Planned Parenthood (PP), GlSEN (Gay-Lesbian-Straight Education Network) etc., seem to continually get handed public funds. Planned Parenthood just hired Dana Singiser as VP for Government Relations. She had worked previously as a special assistant to the President in the White House.

Department of Energy's (DoE) $535 million loan to bankrupt Solyndra. Another “green” company, First Solar received two loan guarantees just before the loans expired. Shortly thereafter, DoE sent an additional $4.7 billion in "green energy” loans to four other companies, and over $10 billion to 16 others.

Include a $529 million DoE grant to Fisker Automotive to build hybrid cars. But the cars are being assembled in Finland. In Massachusetts, Beacon Power received $67 million in assistance from the DoE, but has filed for bankruptcy protection.

Socialism forgets four things. 1) You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity. 2)  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3) The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. And, 4) You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

                                                                                                                       
The real questions are why Obama is spending huge amounts of taxpayer money, with little hope of receiving any back. It seems we’ve been on the road to Socialism for a few years now. Can anyone say “World Bank”?

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

 Asheville’s Planned Parenthood Health Center

Obama's ulterior motives seemed to have taken a strange turn. Planned Parenthood and the United Nations are but mere foreshadows of what can be done to turn this economy around. Reduction of the debt can be done easily. It's the priorities that you have that makes all the difference. Obama doesn't seem to want to decrease what PP and the UN are currently receiving at all.

According to Obama, PP is the greatest organization that has walked this earth. Lately, he decided to trample the will of New Hampshire. On 9/13, the Obama administration made a decision to force New Hampshire taxpayers to fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, even after New Hampshire’s Executive Council voted to revoke a $1.8 million contract.

PP says the reinstated grant will not fund abortions. But it frees up money the abortion business would otherwise have to spend on advertising and promoting abortions. Obama Administration did not provide any competitive process for other non-abortion agencies to compete for the contract.

In College Campus Censorship - LifeNews.com describes how PP, and its radically pro-abortion surrogate, Sister Song, have been desperate to find ways to counter efforts to reduce Black abortion. In 2009 PP performed over 330,000 abortions. Over 2/3 of all abortions in the US are done on Black babies. A full 98% of its services are going to pregnant women who abort.

Obama refuses to eliminate any public funding for PP and their abortions. He seems to act as though PP is extremely important to his presidency. [YouTube - Barack Obama Addresses Planned Parenthood]

Along with that, Obama refuses to cut taxpayer funds to the UN. UN Agencies Stockpile Billions While Women and ... - LifeNews.com shows how the UN had stockpiled funds of over $12.2 billion by the end of 2009 [Time to Rein in the U.N.'s Budget | The Heritage Foundation].

There are 18 Arabic/Islamic States that vote against the US 75% of the time. This is according to both the US State Department, and UN records. For Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, India, and Saudi Arabia, the US sends over $9 billion/yr. In the 2010 budget year, the US portion for the UN was $7.7 billion. With the growth rate staying constant at 26%/yr, the US will pay $9.7 billion to the UN in 2011, and $11.2 billion in 2012.

Suddenly, World Government comes to mind. For such a government, there has to be a leader. One specific person has to control one country’s specific items: energy options, healthcare, population control, climate control, and many others. 

A purported leader should have many advantages, such as speaking well, desire to change the future, and purported love of all races and ethnicities. One has to start small, gain trust, and eventually have enough power to run roughshod over those who disagree.

Only two topics have been touched in this column. For energy options, Obama wants to charge for any CO2 produced. He has gotten close to worldwide consensus on this idea. But he could generate over a million new American jobs looking for drilling, and refining newfound oil; as well as building, and running new American nuclear facilities.

He could eliminate the institution of “Obamacare”, cut billions in the cost of government, and stop forcing America to pay for abortions. Just on the economic side, The Economic Cost of Abortion: $202 Billion in Lost Taxes ... per year, demonstrates how abortions are resulting in billions in lost taxes.

Population will be in an unstoppable freefall by 2100, and anthropogenic global warming has proven to be a scientific farce. But the government keeps pumping in billions to prove how it’s being a savior to its people. And Obama’s dealings with Unions is leading America down the proverbial one-controller path.

Obama’s first two stimulus packages cost a trillion dollars. Now, America is almost $15 trillion in debt. There are 47% of Americans (highest in history) receiving one, or more, federal benefit payments, and dependent on a non-producing government. The Department of Labor reports unemployment at 9.1%. But the real unemployment rate, counting those who have since stopped looking for work, is 16.2% (August) [American Thinker/Chad Stafco].

Per the Heritage Foundation, 75 major new regulations were passed since Obama took office, costing US businesses $40 billion. It’s also known near-future Obama plans---Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue.

He’s attempting another bailout. When have we heard bailout before?

Be prepared for a World Government if things continue as they are.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached  at roetenks@charter.net.

     Mixing abortion with woman power is not an oxymoron. Women many times claim that a young baby they’re pregnant with (what else can they be pregnant with?) is only her body. She says she can do anything with her body she wants.

If she’s pregnant, she’s got a living, breathing, human within her body. But that living human is a totally separate entity, with a whole set of different chromosomes. It’s in her body, but it’s no longer her body.

One non-abortion group seems overly concerned with the “After Abortion” part. They believe abortion can be a direct or indirect result of an unwanted abortion, or coerced actions that can psychologically force the woman into aborting. 

Women are considered the stronger sex in many forms. Usually, they can withstand higher amounts of physical pain than their male counterparts, and many women would consider themselves equal or better than men in most instances, except with the possibility of brute strength.

Women are strong enough to withstand any coercion. Especially to do what is right. If they relinquish to coercion, they never fully believed in not doing what they were coerced into doing in the first place. Women are stronger than that. At any time, a woman can speak up, and physically say she doesn’t want an abortion. No one can abort when they say NO. We’re a still free country, at least so far.

Women may be scared of future occurrences, but none outweigh killing their own child. Well over 99% of abortion cases do not involve any forced abortion with zero approval from the mother. Somehow the mother was talked into it, putting the killing of her own child into a secondary, or tertiary position. Choosing, or allowing, the abortion kills the child every time. But the mother almost always has the last word.

It is believed 64% of all abortions involve some sort of coercion. That could result from  lack of money; lack of want or time for the child; others saying aborting the child was the best thing to do under the circumstances; parents, boyfriends, girlfriends, pastors, or anyone who has a degraded view of life, coercing the abortion.

People are shocked at the result on the aborted baby when contraceptives are used. They make the uterus inhospitable, and thus susceptible to a rejection and expulsion by the uterus of a newly formed baby. The baby may not look like a baby yet, but is fertilized, and has the necessary soul and DNA to continue into forming an adult human, if left to grow.

The problem is that at this young age, a baby is so small that a uterine rejection may go unnoticed. At this age, the baby is small enough that a full scale uterine operation is not necessary to clandestinely dispose of an unwanted baby. Millions believe they are pro-life, even though they may actually be aborting a baby because of contraceptive methods. It may be some time until most of America is really pro-life. Everyone will have to understand what contraception really does.

Theoretically, every man involved with coercion to abort a baby should be charged with accomplice to murder. And vice-versa---any man unknowledgeable of an abortion done on the baby he created, deserves recompense.   

The job is actually huge. The penal code needs to be altered. Roe vs. Wade needs to be rescinded. People’s minds need to be changed, to realize what a life is. Easily found, it’s stated as the first right (of 3) in the Declaration. The law must be changed to help people understand it’s not legal to kill a young baby.

We already have post-abortion healing available to those women and men who have undergone this horrific procedure: the Jericho Plan, Project Rachel, Jubilee Program and Rachel’s Vineyard to name a few. These are very beneficial programs for the recovering woman and man after an abortion. But they only deal with the aftermath of killing your own child.

What is more desperately needed, is something that addresses the problem of abortion in the first place. Strong women making themselves known, are the first thing. Certainly being 53% of the general population, and realizing your sexual leverage, gives you a front seat advantage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

Coming up in September, we might see a faint comet (called ELEnin), or, a rogue brown dwarf star. The first possibility is a comet, which is a normal occurrence. The second possibility, a brown dwarf star, would be a major scientific anomaly. The first possibility is barely perceptible visibly, and not headed for any earth collision (36,000 miles distance at nearest approach).

Exact locations can be determined at http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=ELENIN&orb=1. The second possibility, a brown dwarf star, can be seen on the exact same path.

Strange, but both are almost invisible to the telescope’s eye. The comet is far enough away from the sun now, so it would seem almost invisible. A dwarf star would be equally hard to see, because it retains all its star mass without fusion occurring. This particular comet/dwarf star has gotten more than its share of publicity. In fact, ELEnin has been observed 2218 times by NASA since June [http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-135]. Only comets Hale-Bopp and Halley have been observed more times.

That second possibility is a super-cold failed star. It’s temperature is just above absolute “0”, but may be more massive than a number of Jupiters. Official word is ELEnin is a typical comet, and will soon be a non-event.

Many are convinced that it really is a brown dwarf star, or what some have already labeled as a dark star. The chances of it being a brown dwarf are remote. But not that remote. One astronomer puts the chances of it being a brown dwarf at 14%. It will likely be a non-event, but in the astronomical world a 14% chance is very, very significant.

Why a brown dwarf? Many claim to have noticed perturbations it has caused to other celestial object paths, with indications of more mass than 12 Jupiters [Update:Elenin will be Huge!by Mr2tuff].  At that size, a star would not have achieved fusion, and would be almost completely dark. Of course, with an object so dark, perturbations of other celestial bodies may never have been noticed.                      

ELEnin does not act or look like a comet to many astronomers. It’s the first time this object has ever been recorded making a flyby. It does not originate from the Main Asteroid Belt (between Mars and Jupiter), the Centaurs, the Kuiper Belt, or the Oort Cloud.

If this brown dwarf follows its predicted orbit, several things will happen. During a flyby, gravitational forces will wreak havoc with earth’s tectonic plates which will cause earthquakes. Many have already occurred. One could expect readings to exceed 9.0 (Richter Scale). That was associated with the March 2011 Japan earthquake from ELEnin’s last conjunction.

Magnetic Portals Connect Earth to the Sun - NASA Science reports, will be cut off on 9/26/11 when ELEnin crosses directly in between the earth and the sun on the celestial plane. Magnetic Portals were thought to be non-existent, until proved in 2008. Magnetic Portals between the earth and the sun will be shortest but thickest at this upcoming conjunction, right during the interruption of normal particle flow.

During this period, earth’s north pole will be rejected by the sun. Migration of the earth’s true north pole is already occurring. How far it travels, and if it will ever return to its original position is not known. With an altered pole, wind currents, and tilt of the planet will not be known. It’s sill unknown what will happen to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)-- largest climate controlling ocean current.

And still, another alignment date on 11/22/11 will occur. Only 0.58 AU distant (the dwarf star), rather than 2.10 AU from earth, [orbits shown on ELEnin Dwarf Star Warning September 26, 2011 – YouTube], gravitational forces will be significantly higher, and other unexpected happenings may occur.

Many questions, but few answers. The object will most likely be only a comet. In the event it’s not, consider yourself forewarned

That said, natural variations and climate changes that would come from a marauding dwarf star, would likely convince many believers in converting away from anthropogenic global warming. It’s a sure bet a rogue dwarf star would not be responsible for production of any additional CO2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

Of course, the words ‘Death Panel’ weren’t in Obama’s 2000-word health care plan. The words socialism, aborting, taxing, and redistribution of earned money weren’t in there either. But most Americans know they’re in there.

Obama’s Universal HealthCare won’t give people the option to put people’s relatives to death. At least not yet. It is known by millions what will happen if government-run health care becomes a reality. First, people will be allowed (or the government will do it for them) to euthanize older folks, or generally anyone expected to die in less than six months.

If Universal Healthcare gets approved, the Obama administration holds every ‘control’ button. With the unsustainably high budget deficit, the government will inevitably make cost-minded judgments about what procedures are ‘worth’ doing, and which are not.

A 2009 interview with Obamacare advocate David Leonhardt (NYT) was quite telling. He specifically mentioned “a very difficult democratic conversation” about the most expensive costs of Medicare. Specifically, those occur during the last 6 months of life.

Take a known comrade who is wheelchair bound with Multiple Sclerosis. He is approaching 55, with a fading memory, and the inability to hold a regular job. The MS is progressing, despite the need for ultra high cost medication. Throw in the need for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), doctor’s visits, and other medications. He is not considered a a valuable member of society.

He will be judged as one having few years left, if any. Continuing to spend money on his medications will be highly inefficient, and quite problematic with skyrocketing budget deficits. With increasing debt, it will be determined people with certain diseases like diabetes, extreme heart difficulties, Down Syndrome, liver disease, etc…, cannot be put on the public dole any longer. Money will not be spent on people that will only live shortly.

Bottom line, many procedures like heart transplants, liver dialysis, joint replacements, etc…, cannot and will not be afforded by government. Public money is no longer available. It then decides what is right, and what is necessary. The government must be dependent upon massive tax increases to finance universal medical coverage.

Why stop there? With an incredibly high deficit, those at risk must include the blind, the deaf, the senile, the retarded, or anyone with a significant neurological condition. Anyone dare say Third Reich?

The current deficit is so high, that ‘whittling it down’ is no longer feasible. At what point in time will proponents of Obamacare (Democrats, with next presidential election) decide certain medications can no longer be afforded? Most will believe certain procedures do not agree with meager Medicare allowances, since the patient has few years of life left anyway.

According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), fully a fifth of the us population will be over 65 in two decades.  And whatever marvels of modern medicine await, the mortality rate will still be at 100%. The average woman had 6.0 children per the CIA World Factbook in 1960, but today the global average is only 2.9. A birth rate minimum of 2.1 is necessary for simple population replacement. Even UN data indicates by 2030, US birth rate will fall to a likely low variant of 1.72 children per woman.

At that point, the government will realize that even draconian methods of deficit reductions are more than necessary. Because the government would be in control of ~ 1/5 of our economy, it can literally decide who lives and who dies. The purported population explosion will only exacerbate that problem. Believing that over population actually exists, simply forces the solution of eliminating more people than ever.

More abortion, sterilization, and contraception are top on the list of government deemed responsibilities. What’s next, only having blond-haired male babies?

Not yet, but passing Universal Healthcare puts us almost there.

Government-run healthcare. With their deficit and socialistic agenda, they’ve got little devolving to do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

The media with an incorrect story?  A crisis of pedophilia in the Catholic Church? We were misled by the media again. But in this instance, the Catholic Church seems to get most of the blame, the media gets the attention for a ‘crisis’ they allegedly uncovered, and a scandal is born.

USCCB - The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of ...minors by Catholic priests in the US, is the study released by  by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. This recent report (2011) reiterates Phillip Jenkins/Penn State/”Pedophiles and Priests'”, reported 9 years ago.

What the media reported was vastly different. Corrections are as follows:

1) “Catholic priests were almost always the sexual deviant” was incorrect. Clergy, in general, are no more likely to be involved with sexual misconduct than any other citizen.  Because of accurate records kept by the Catholic Church, few have any idea if a Catholic cleric has a higher or lower rate for teachers/abusers, residential counselors, social workers, or scout masters. From Jenkins we hear: “Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics”. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as had Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, HareKrishnah’s—and the list goes on.”       

2) “Being celibate leads more to sexual indiscretions” is commonly quoted, and quite incorrect. Catholic priests have no monopoly on sexual misconduct with minors. Even though news media typically see sexual abuse as crises of celibacy, priests actually have a lower rate of offense that their non-celibate counterparts. As stated in Our Sunday Visitor (2/25/96) “…the problem is bigger among Protestant clergy.” In other words, clerical sexual misconduct is by no means just a Catholic problem. [Catholic Matters: PEDOPHILE PRIESTS ?]

3)  The “AP” reported on 8/09 that sex abuse claims by Protestant clergy reported by Church Mutual, GuideOne, and Brotherhood Mutual amounted to almost 260 reports each year. The annual average of complaints by Catholic clergy revealed an average of 228 “credible accusations”. Bottom line, there’s no denominational boundaries with sexual abuse. As Jenkins writes, “The story of clerical abuse is bad enough without turning it into an unjustifiable of religious bigotry against the Catholic Church.”

4) A “pedophilia” crisis (sexual attraction of adult towards those below puberty) was incorrect. The correct terminology was “ephebophilia” (homosexual attracted to very young men). Homosexuality has always been the actual problem. About 40 priests, or about 1.8% of the whole, were likely guilty of some misconduct with minors.  Any offending perpetrators were simply members of the Catholic Church—not representative of the Faith.

In Priests, Abuse, and the Meltdown of a Culture - George Weigel ...comments on the John Jay report mentioned above. This College reveals most sexual abuse takes place within families. They conclude the sexual abuse of the young is a widespread and horrific societal problem, not principally a Catholic priest problem.

Between 1950 and 2002, the John Jay study revealed about five young people in 100,000 may have been abused by a priest, but the average in the US  general population was 134 per 100,000. A sexual problem exists alright, but it’s not at its worst with any church.

In the John Jay study, the Catholic bishops (and society as a whole) had no idea the magnitude of the abuse problem. Bishops thought these perpetrators could be cured and returned to active ministry. But with stringent checks routinely done by the Catholic Church (background checks, specific numbers of chaperones/students, windows in all doors, etc…), it’s said to be the safest environment for young people today.

It seems the Catholic Church is much safer than public schools, and especially the family in general. Will the mainstream media change their tune about who the major perpetrator of child sexual abuse is? Not likely. The Catholic Church is a favorite target.

No doubt the heinous nature of some Catholic priests has been totally unacceptable. But even more sexual abuse from other religions, the public school system, and familial abuses is rarely discussed. But the Catholic Church still gets pelted from “rock-throwers”. The Church also knows worse atrocities have always been accused.

The problem is not one of corrupt doctrine, but of abusers not being true to their duty, promises, or faith. It sounds as if the mainstream media is doing the same thing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

Young unborn tigers being killed in their mother’s womb is not accepted in our society. What about killing young unborn golden retrievers? If large enough, the baby retrievers would have to be removed piece by piece, or if almost full term, would have to be wholly removed and left to die outside of the womb somewhere. 

One could kill the mother, but no more babies would be produced after that. But with humans, the mother is a “life”. It would be unacceptable to kill her. But many decide to kill the baby instead. Wasn’t it thought to be unacceptable to kill “life”?

But humans fall back on Roe v. Wade, not only to justify, but to claim as ‘legal’ the killing of unborn children. It’s difficult to answer the question—what happens to the soul if I abort? Then we comprehend that diabolical accomplice—Planned Parenthood of America (PPA).

Do Americans want their tax money ($404.9 million/yr) paying to create death(www.NRLC.org)?  But PPA took in over a billion dollars in 2009, when over 90% of their services involved abortion and contraception.

Information from www.fidelis.org reveals that PPA provides birth control to more than 2.5 million women every year, but fertility treatments to fewer than 400. As we know, birth control makes the uterus inhospitable, which usually aborts a fertilized embryo at the earliest stage.

PPA was founded in 1916 by Margaret Sanger. She argued “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Even today’s president (Cecile Richards) said de-funding PPA would result in “millions of women” not being able to get mammograms from PPA anymore. But all PPA facilities across America said they don’t do mammograms.

NRLC reveals 362,600 abortions/year will be done in 2011. How many times has PPA failed to notify a minor girl’s parents of her secret abortion, having statutory rape cases (recorded by more than 800 calls), and covering up for sexual predators and child rapists?

PhD Randall O’Bannon’s description of Planned Parenthood is child’s play compared to his expose in 2011: Planned Parenthood: Your Tax Dollars at Work. The unnerving fact is PPA (2006) was caught selling body parts to companies that sell them to others [Georgia Right To Life: Education >> Planned Parenthood].

Just in Kansas, PPA had more than 107 criminal charges (Father Frank's Alerts) for sexual crimes, but none have stuck. PPA funding is the one thing Democrats are positively unwilling to cut. Harry Reid (S/D/Nv) wouldn’t even allow it to come up for a vote. As Reid declared, “Not only no, but H-LL NO!” 

The US House voted to de-fund Obamacare and PPA (two major pro-life bills: 240-185, and 241-185). The US Senate, with a slight Democrat majority, rejected both bills (47-53, and 42-58), so PPA funding was unaffected. Bottom line, for government funding to change, the Senate must change to Republican majority. Even Gallup reveals the majority of Americans are pro-life.

The defeat of both bills ensured the existing government deficit would balloon upward. Even with PPA expenditures smaller than ‘Obamacare’, cutting of PPA government support would lead to many other cuts.

Indiana’s recently passed law to defund PPA of any state tax dollars is under fierce attack from Obama and Kathleen Sebelius, threatening to pull the state's $4.3 billion in Medicaid.  This puts the health care of low-income women at risk, and flaunts Indiana’s right to decide how to spend tax dollars. The results of this fight in Indiana may also affect other states considering cuts to PPA including Wisconsin, Texas, North Carolina, Kansas and New Jersey.

Next presidential election, 33% of the Senate will be elected. PPA funding decisions can easily be swayed. The Declaration specifically protects “life” as Americans’ 3 existing rights. Founder Thomas Jefferson stated, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

Never before has there been such a pronounced divide on one topic. States which will force our nation to either cease to exist, or emerge from the morass we see as socialist spending, and total degradation of “life” mentioned in the Declaration.   

This November we can decide exactly how we will proceed.

We need to adhere to that statement in our pledge, “One nation, under GOD, with liberty and justice for all”.

God help us if we make the wrong decision, because we will no longer be one nation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net .               

According to a UN 2009 revised population forecast, world population will peak at around 7 billion in 2030, and begin to fall. How can that be? In 1980, world population was forecast to be significantly higher by 2030.

Many plagues and Epidemics have culled population from the earliest times. The worst were the Plague of Justinian(Byzantine Empire/541–542 AD), Black Death(1347), Great Plague(1665), oriental Bubonic Plague(1894), Spanish Flu(1918), and HIV/AIDS(1985—).

But the worst population killer is the epidemic that will not be controlled. We have done this to ourselves. It is chemical/artificial fertility control.

In UNdata | record view | Total fertility rate (children per woman) by 2030, we see that the world’s medium variant will be 2.21 (children per woman). The low variant will be 1.72, with 2.10 being the minimum replacement rate for replacing population. Evidence is mounting that the low variant (1.72 children per woman) is the proper choice, but will still be too high.

Typical variables such as birth control, arbortifacient use (RU-486, abortion pill, Ella, etc…), age of parents, and abortion of babies during any trimester, directly affect population. It’s been documented for years that materials such as depo-provera (breakthrough ovulation 40-60% of the time), Norplant (b/t ovulation 50-65%), and the IUD (b/t ovulation 100%) [Abortion Debate Forum - You Have Probably Had An Abortion Without ...] kill young babies.

Outside variables also affect population numbers, such as same-sex marriage, sterilization, reduced egg production, AIDS/HIV, and elimination of DDT (resulting in millions of deaths each year). With fewer eggs, one has fewer possibilities of conceiving with the partner.  With same-sex marriage, there’s the impossibility of conceiving with the partner. With sterilization, the impossibility of conceiving with anyone.  With the lack of DDT to kill or repel malaria-infected mosquitoes, or with HIV/AIDS, there’s fewer partners to conceive with.

Now, a new study covering the last 30 years reveals sex-selection abortions in India were as high as 12 million girls. Girls killed specifically because of their gender in a society that wants boys over girls [The Exploding Population: World Population and its Impact].

According to Professor Prabhat Jha (Center for Global Health Research/Toronto/Canada), the abortions have increased over the last 10 years. By 2030, UN predicts India’s fertility rate (medium variant) will be 1.96, and (low variant), 1.46.

In China, they vigorously pursue their one-child policy ["Illegal" Babies Abducted by Chinese Population Control Officials ...]. Violators have sometimes been subjected to coerced abortions or, after birth of a child, have been forced to pay substantial fines, and have been sterilized. For China, UN predicts a medium variant of 1.85,  and a low variant of 1.35.  Both variants, for both countries (two largest populations) are well below replacement rates.

Now we hear about the “man” being a co-conspirator of declining population. In Out for the count: Why levels of sperm in men are falling ..., the Independent explains why men’s sperm count has dropped over 27% in the last 8 years. A good portion is directly due to the hormone estrogen. There has been a lot of interest in chemicals in the environment, especially those that can mimic female sex hormones (i.e., oestrogenic chemicals).

This chemical is typically ‘peed’ out of a woman when she takes the “pill” for birth control. Most water treatment plants don’t remove the estrogen from drinking water. One in seven couples are now classified as infertile, and the ‘male’ can be responsible if he has a low sperm count.

Even though a baby small enough to be chemically aborted can be flushed down the toilet, it’s still a life at the earliest stages. It is calculated between 7-12 million/year newly conceived children are killed by chemical abortions in the womb. [Abortion Debate Forum - You Have Probably Had An Abortion Without Knowing It] [http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic20209.html#ixzz1LV9S15tD]

In Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? Reviewed by Jed ... Stuber, we know the BCP can cause abortions by making the uterus inhospitable to implantation.

It’s estimated at least 30 million souls are aborted and killed worldwide every year. It’s numbing to calculate the number of deliberate infant deaths since abortions and oral contraception pill’s (OCP’s) began to be used. Even the UN does not reveal the difficulty for world population to change their sexual mores, and thus alter worldwide fertility rates.

Once the population gets to zero-growth, it will spiral downward. Any growth will be negatively affected by all past population reduction techniques. Existing sexual practices such as abortions, use of the pill, and other abortifacients will be almost impossible to stop. At this point, population decline will become detrimental.

Chemical/surgical abortions and OCP’s, are the one-two punch for eliminating world population. Few will care, as they will not be alive when a dying population is known. It seems as the UN has met their goal of reduced population growth, and have turned a ‘blind’ eye to the ensuing consequences.

Maybe Someone is trying to tell us something with existing man-made sexual techniques, and chemicals in the wrong places. Maybe some of us don’t even believe in a ‘Someone’.

Likely the human race probably won’t be completely destroyed---yet. But quality of life will be significantly knocked down. And that would be almost as bad in 2030.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

It was done recently with Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), just as 20-30 years ago with Ozone Depletion. With AGW, it was hyped to be a destroyer of ecology, and a harbinger of possible death. Instead, people found natural variations changing earth’s climate, from hot to cold. It’s seems likely natural variations affect the ozone as well.

With ozone depletion, millions were (and are) convinced that chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), and certain brominated compounds (Halons) were the culprits. As a result, the most stable and non-toxic refrigerants, and safest halogenated fire retardants were phased out of production.

Two scientists—Roland and Molina—seemed determined to find and answer to suspected ozone (O3) depletion. Only problem was ozone was only being depleted in large quantities over the earth’s Antarctic pole.  

Their theory claiming CFCs would deplete the ozone layer was actually theory #7, invented in December 1973. The first five ozone depletion theories (1-[SuperSonicTransport (SST)-water], 2-[SST-nitrogen oxides], 3-[atmospheric nuclear tests], 4-[fertilizers], and 5-[methane gases from cows]) didn’t quite fit the bill. Then, the theory “du-jour” (#6) was chlorine from the Space Shuttle exhaust would cause reduced ozone over Florida, and eventually deplete the ozone layer worldwide. However, Rowland and Molina later found a better source of chlorine in the atmosphere. Hence, theory #7--CFCs. (The Ozone Depletion Theory)

Their theory about ozone depletion couldn’t quite overcome a number of obstacles, however:

1) The first comprehensive worldwide measurements started in 1978, with the Nimbus-7 satellite. It was not known what  was happening with ozone for the eons of prior earth history.

2) The ozone layer is likely self-correcting. With less O3, more UV rays can penetrate deeper into the atmosphere,  encountering a higher O2 concentration, where it forms more O3. A likely reason for little, if any, additional UV radiation getting to the earth’s surface.

3) With purported ozone depletion, thinning of the ozone layer (no ‘hole’) that occurred throughout the 1980s apparently stopped in the early 1990s, too soon to credit implementation of the Montreal Protocol. A 1998 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report said, “since 1991, the linear (downward) trend observed during the 1980s has not continued, but rather total column ozone has been almost constant …” [The Sentinel- The Ozone Layer: The hole truth.]

4)  More importantly, the dreaded increase in ground level UVb failed to materialize. The much-hyped acceleration in skin cancer rates never existed, and nothing was documented. National Cancer Institute statistics show that malignant melanoma incidence and mortality, which had been undergoing a long-term increase predating alleged ozone depletion, has actually been leveling off during the putative ozone crisis.

5) Faced with assumed UVb increases from ozone destruction in the 1990’s, a Canadian Parliamentary Committee began investigating ozone depletion, with the intent to control the alleged problem. Major participants were in groups: 1) Friends of Earth (5 members), DuPont (5) [major CFC producer], and 3 climate scientists.  Dr. Ball describes the proceedings in Ozone And Carbon Dioxide.

6) At the meeting, DuPont (largest producers of CFCs) reps said very little; they were already phasing out CFC’s, and had a replacement product (HFC-134A) in preparation.

7) A few other assumptions made were: a) early on it was assumed that UV light was a constant (not true with sunspot cycles); b) Roland and Molina demonstrated CFC’s could destroy ozone in very artificial laboratory conditions, c) there was no actual evidence of losses of stratospheric ozone other than Antarctica, but ozone levels were found higher than pre-protocol levels in 1989; d) Protocol participants intensely focused on CFC’s almost to exclusion of other possible explanations;  e) bureaucracies were established, laws passed, and punishments determined for anyone caught using CFC’s; f) wind patterns (i.e., Circumpolar Vortex), and Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC) were considered possible explanations for destruction of ozone; and g) one point of CFC atmospheric lifetime was forgotten. 

Further, no ecosystem or species was ever shown to be seriously harmed by ozone depletion. This is true even in
Antarctica, where the largest seasonal ozone losses, the so-called Antarctic ozone hole, occur annually.

8) Cosmic Rays (CRs) from space, and those emanating from the sun during sunspot activity, are the possible destroyers of ozone. Qing-Bin Lu’s latest proof of the CR theory for the ozone depletion was in Physical Review Letters on 3/19/9 [a pdf of the paper].  Dr. Lu, a physics and astronomy professor at the University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada), said the fallacy was accepted for more than twenty years that Earth's ozone layer is depleted by chlorine atoms produced by CFCs.

Lu and Sanche’s Study Suggests Cosmic Rays May Destroy Ozone: Scientific American. Results show that CR electrons are about a million times more likely to interact inside the cloud than anyone previously believed. They found evidence for their model in a laboratory simulation of the conditions found in Antarctic clouds. They cooled a metal bar to below -170 °C, and condensed water vapor and CFCs onto its surface. When they then bombarded this "cloud" with low-energy electrons like those produced by CR’s, chlorine was produced.

All recent scientific research indicated Cosmic rays linked to ozone hole - SciForums.com. Both Lu and Sanche analyzed reliable CR and ozone data during 1980-2007, which cover two full “Schwabe” 11-year sunspot cycles. This unambiguously showed the time correlations between CR intensity and ozone depletion, especially over Antarctica. [The Ozone Hole UW prof says cyclic ozone hole proves cosmic ray theory.] Qing-Bin Lu stating prior information on CFC ozone depletion emphatically (as indicated by his use of italics):  "These conclusions were based on climate model simulations rather than direct observations."

9) Stratospheric chemistry is very complex, so scientists were never sure how effective CFC's would be at destroying O3.

The entire ozone scare orchestrated EPA's $32 Trillion Negligible Risk. It is a fact that all CFC’s were not physically destroyed, although a small percentage was. 

In 1992, International Refrigeration experts conservatively estimated that the ban on CFCs was going to kill between 20 to 40 million people every year, through hunger, starvation, and food-borne diseases.

The real nail in the coffin for CFC-12 is its atmospheric lifetime of 80-100 years. CFC 11/12/113 worldwide production maximized in 1985 at 2.1 billion pounds (writer is ex-DuPonter). Knowing CFC-12 was stable enough to last at least 80 years, 2060 is the year when maximum CFCs will have reached the stratosphere. It is a fact that all those CFC’s were not physically destroyed, although a small percentage was.

If UVb radiation had been increased by ozone depletion since 1960 CFC initial production, we would have all experienced increased rates of cancer by now, with the worst to come on 2060. The Montreal Protocol’s claim to fame was no increased cancers. That happened, but it does not seem what they did, diminished natural variances. In the meantime, millions of deaths, $32 trillion wastefully spent, and an intensely political issue was put to rest.

It is still true you can’t prove a negative.

Why is it that respected scientists won’t believe that an Intelligent Designer knew that ozone depletion would be suspected in the destruction of ozone, but had built in a compensating step to eliminate that hazard? Can man feel omnipotent enough where he believes he completely controls his destiny?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

The ‘left’ must be shaking in their boots to see the latest trends of the pro-life juggernaut. More and more people consider themselves pro-life, and favor more restrictions on abortion. The lean towards being pro-life is growing, especially with the young adult.

They understand babies begin sometime, and realize the most obvious answer is at conception. Men, especially, know if they’re in the woods hunting deer and they hear something, prudence dictates to wait and make sure it’s a deer. But it’s already known to be a baby if a woman’s pregnant.

The now commonplace practices of birth control, abortifacient use, late-term abortion (all 3 can be abortion), same-sex marriage, and sterilization were not typically thought of 100 years ago.

With birth control, the uterus is always made inhospitable for implantation, whether the fertilized embryo comes for a visit or not. If the fertilized embryo does visit, it usually can’t implant and is aborted. With same-sex marriage and sterilization, there’s only one purpose--and it’s not population generation.

All mentioned procedures cull the population. Each woman has a set number of eggs she can offer to become children. During the fertile years fewer than 500 of these eggs will be released into the fallopian tubes. Age, or other variables, can dictate how many eggs are left. Previous abortions will affect the number available, especially if it has spurred the onslaught of breast cancer, which will shorten the woman’s lifetime. AIDS/HIV, and the elimination of DDT (tens of millions get malaria without repulsion or death of mosquitoes) count for millions of deaths each year.

Things will get more dramatic, and time will seem to accelerate. People will start to realize that population could actually top out in the year 2050. Remember the eighties, when everyone thought world population would spiral out of control? But Defusing the Population Bomb | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute ... factually obliterates “Bomb”—with the latest population information.

One can physically see that a woman’s fertility rate must be at least 2.1 babies to just replace existing population. The global fertility rate was 6.0 in 1970, but in 2000 it was only 2.9. In WORLD POPULATION TO 2300, the UN says the population will top out (stop increasing) in the year 2050. Now, all that’s changed.

In 2009, the UN revised its population forecast to show a 2.05 fertility rate for the US. By 2050 the US “medium variant” will be 1.85, and the world’s fertility rate will be 2.02 [UNdata | record view | Total fertility rate (children per woman)]. That’s the believed likely scenario, not the worst. And that’s below the minimum replacement rate of 2.1.

Very recent information dictates population will peak at around seven billion in 2030, and then begin a long descent, essentially within the UN Population Division's (Nov ‘96) “low variant” prediction.

When population tops out or maximizes, growth completely stops. Unfortunately, after that, it will begin to spiral downward. One does not realize how contraception, an ageing population, and usual treatments for AIDS/HIV and malaria accelerate a falling fertility rate. If one is using contraception, sex is only a toy, and there’s no intention to increase population.

Abortion in the US peaked in 1990 (1.6 million fewer lives/yr). Even though abortions dropped to 1.2 million thanks to pro-lifers, PP abortions doubled. For 15 years straight, the number of abortions has risen at PP from 8% to 27%. Their plans usually don’t involve parenthood, and their number of abortions-to-adoption referrals is 340-1 (www.NRLC.org; 2/2011 edition). Yet they take >$360 million/yr of taxpayer money.                       

Already, most European countries know their dilemmas, and know their populations are dying off. Even Russia is paying their citizens to go home and have babies.

As one ages, possibilities of conception become dimmer. With abortion and life longevity increases, there are much fewer able to conceive. With AIDS/HIV and malaria prevalent, there will be significantly fewer people available, and even fewer able to conceive in upcoming years.

Steve Mosher reiterates parts of the above in Too many people? Not by a long shot. Peoples and countries already exist now that know the problem of low fertility rates, but will not do what needs be done to increase population. But by time they realize the actuality of population extinction, it’ll be too late. 

We know that our minds extending fifty years into the future can be accomplished. The difficulty is changing the way we do things in twenty. That, will be a monumental leap.              

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.