John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976 The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.

The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party, grow.

Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become ‘adverse parties’ of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform, or real hope in America . Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.

Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

When I think of a Patriot, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin come to mind. How could I even consider myself a Patriot? In reviewing my American history I remembered:

The Patriots of 1776 believed:

* in Natural Law which was based on God’s Laws and used these laws to build the Constitution

*in limited government

*in protecting the family and the institution of marriage

*in self-preservation

*in justice by reparation

*in the right to bear arms

*in no taxation without representation

*all men are created equal

*in “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”

*those representing “the People” work for the people

As I read through these, I realize that I believe the same things, so I will consider myself a Patriot.  I may not be in the same league, but I believe just as strongly.   The difference is they were Patriots of the structuring of a brand new country bound for glory.   I am a Tea Party Patriot working to bring back to focus the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Natural Law in order to protect the country the 1776 Patriots envisioned.  The San Antonio Tea Party is a group of people of all races and professions who are nonpartisan, peaceful, well-organized, and intelligent .  If you believe as the Patriots, come work with us .   It just might relieve your frustration and help you have your voice heard.

Beverly Bybee

‘Prof. Schneider has withdrawn any permission for you to use his name, likeness or interview’

Tuesday, October 06, 2009By Marc Morano –  Climate Depot

Climate Depot Exclusive

Stanford University has banned a skeptical documentary film from airing a climate change interview with one of its prominent warming activist professors, Stephen Schneider. After legal threats from Stanford University — apparently on behalf of Prof. Schneider — the documentary filmmakers were forced to use a blank screen and an actor had to read the transcript of Schneider’s already taped but legally banned climate interview. The skeptical global warming documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong”, set for its international premier on October 18, 2009, interviewed Schneider about his flip-flop from a coming ice age proponent in the 1970s to his current advocacy of man-made global warming fears. Schneider is a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. (email: shswebsite@lists.stanford.edu)

Irish filmmaker Phelim McAleer told Climate Depot: “Lawyers for Stanford University have tried to ban our documentary from reporting on how one of their professors previously predicted an imminent ice-age, but is now a leading global warming advocate.” (Schneider joins others like Obama Science Czar John Holdren. See: Climate Depot’s Factsheet on 1970s Coming ‘Ice Age’ Claims — ‘Fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media’)

To watch the “banned” video excerpt from “Not Evil Just Wrong” of an actor portraying Schneider’s interview click here.

Climate Depot has obtained a copy of Stanford University’s legal letter prohibiting the Irish filmmakers from airing Schneider’s already taped interview in which he was questioned about his inconvenient conversion from a global cooling advocate in the 1970s to a present day global warming activist.

‘You are prohibited’

Stanford University sent a scathing letter to the documentary makers declaring: “You are prohibited from using any of the Stanford footage you shot, including your interview of Professor Stephen Schneider. Professor Schneider likewise has requested that I inform you that he has withdrawn any permission for you to use his name, likeness or interview in connection with any film project you may undertake.”

‘Removed from your footage’

The Stanford letter concluded: “Please confirm to me in writing that you have received and will comply with Stanford’s directive that all shots of Stanford University (both indoors and outdoors) and all parts of Professor Schneider’s interview will be removed from your footage. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.”

Climate Depot has also obtained the exclusive pre-release video and the transcript of Schneider’s interview which Stanford University lawyers deemed too hot for broadcast. McAleer called on Stanford to withdraw the legal threat which has forced the filmmakers to use a blank screen and an actor’s voice to read the text of Professor Schneider’s interview about his changing climate positions.

“The lawyers at Stanford sent the unprecedented letter after we asked Schneider about his flip-flopping on climate alarmism,” the film’s director McAleer explained. McAleer said he is shocked at the legal maneuvering by Stanford to censor an interview with one of their most prominent professors.

‘Chilling effect’

“This will have a chilling effect on academic freedom and students. It sends out the message – don’t ask your professors embarrassing questions because they will not be tolerated,” McAleer said.

McAleer’s documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong” takes a skeptical look at man-made global warming claims. “Not Evil Just Wrong” attempts to “show the human cost of extreme environmentalism.” “It reveals how global warming legislation such as cap-and-trade will chase jobs out of America during one of the biggest recessions in living memory,” McAleer said.

To watch the “banned” video excerpt from “Not Evil Just Wrong” of Schneider’s interview click here.

‘Sufficient to trigger an ice age’

In the 1970s Professor Schneider was one of the leading voices warning the Earth was going to experience a catastrophic man-made ice-age. However he is now a member of the UN IPCC and is a leading advocate warning that the Earth is facing catastrophic global warming. In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of the possibility of a man-made “ice age.” See: Rasool S., & Schneider S.”Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: ‘The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Schneider was still promoting the coming “ice age” in 1978. (See: Unearthed 1970’s video: Global warming activist Stephen Schneider caught on 1978 TV show ‘In Search Of…The Coming Ice Age’ – September 20, 2009) By the 1980’s, Schneider reversed himself and began touting man-made global warming. See: “The rate of [global warming] change is so fast that I don’t hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems,” Schneider said on UK TV in 1990.

‘Scary scenarios’

Schneider also has made controversial remarks advocating “scary scenarios” to convince the public of climate threat. “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” (For full context of Schneider’s quote see here.)

‘Slaughter’ skeptics in a debate?

Schneider also reversed himself after issuing a public debate challenge to skeptical scientists in 2009. Schneider originally boasted that skeptics would be “slaughtered” in a debate, but after numerous challengers stepped forward, he quickly backed off and declared he would not “schedule some political show debate.” See: Scientist who boasted he could ’slaughter’ skeptics in debate backs off…’I certainly will not schedule some political show debate in front of a non-scientific ‘ – June 1, 2009

1970s ‘Ice Age’ Fears Were Widespread

Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970’s global cooling fears appeared in peer-reviewed literature, scientific conferences and were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Newsweek Magazine even used the climate “tipping point” argument in 1975 to hype global cooling. Newsweek wrote April 28, 1975 article: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

But on October 24, 2006, Newsweek admitted it erred in predicting a coming ice age in the 1970’s. (See also: NYT: Obama’s global warming promoting science czar Holdren ‘warned of a coming ice age’ in 1971 – September 29, 2009 & also see: NASA warned of human caused coming ‘ice age’ in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007 and also see: 1975 New York Times: “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead”, May 21, 1975 and see: 1974 Time Magazine: “Another Ice Age,” June 24, 1974)

For a full report on the 1970’s ice age scare, see Climate Depot’s 1970’s Ice Age Fact Sheet. Climate Depot’s Factsheet on 1970s Coming ‘Ice Age’ Claims — ‘Fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media’

Climate Depot Exclusive: Transcript of Professor Stephen Schneider segment from “Not Evil Just Wrong.” International Release Date October 18, 2009:

Video Clip of Prof. Schneider’s interview from “Not Evil Just Wrong” available here.

VO (Voice Over): In the 1970s one of those who believed the earth was facing an ice age caused by humans was Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. However Professor is now one of the leading scientists claiming the earth is heating up because of man made global warming. He is a senior member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a close advisor to former vice-president Al Gore. Professor Schneider was with Al Gore when he heard he had won the Nobel peace prize.

Al Gore: I am of course deeply honored…

VO: In the 1970s he was a leading voice warning of an imminent ice-age Professor Schneider now gives frequent interviews warning the complete opposite – that we are all in danger from imminent Global Warming.

Prof. Stephen Schneider: Don’t be poor in a hot country, don’t live in a hurricane alley, watch out about being on a cost or in the arctic, it’s bad idea to be up in high mountains with your glaciers melting and losing your water supply and if you are in Mediterranean climate you’re gonna have a fire season in the summer and it’s really gonna be a problem.

VO: Professor Schneider was interviewed for this documentary. We asked him about his support in the 1970s for the theory of man-made Global Cooling. After the interview lawyers for the university wrote stating we could not use our footage of Stanford and that Professor Schneider was withdrawing permission for his interview to be screened. According to legal advice we are prevented from screening Professor Schneider’s image or footage of Stanford filmed during our interview. But we can report what he said, using an actor saying his actual words.

Actor’s Voice (words of Prof Stephen Schneider): I was initially in 1970 and ‘71 more worried about cooling.

VO: Indeed Professor Schneider in the 1970s published papers and praised books which warned of the devastating consequences of the forthcoming man made ice age. But within ten years Professor Schneider and the scientific consensus claimed the earth was experiencing global warming.

Actor’s Voice (words of Prof Stephen Schneider): The scientific community is very, very confident that it is warming.

VO: Despite this dramatic reversal of the scientific consensus Prof. Schneider, Al Gore and their supporters are now urging governments to increase taxes and ban oil coal and gas, the fossil fuels, that are the main source of worlds cheap energy.

End “Not Evil Just Wrong” transcript excerpt.

Related Links:

Climate Depot’s Factsheet on 1970s Coming ‘Ice Age’ Claims — ‘Fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media’ – October 6, 2009

Unearthed video: Global warming activist Stephen Schneider caught on 1978 TV show ‘In Search Of…The Coming Ice Age’ – September 19, 2009

Geologist rips Obama’s ‘new scare report’- Mocks it for referencing ‘the work of Stephen H. Schneider 6 times’ – June 17, 2009

Scientist Schneider who boasted he could ’slaughter’ skeptics in debate backs off…’I certainly will not schedule some political show debate in front of a non-scientific audience’ – June 1, 2009

Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country.

Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority.

Questions involving but not limited to:

Health Care: If the framers had intended the federal government to establish and manage hospitals and Alms Houses within the states, they would no doubt have given it the explicit authority to do so. To misconstrue the general Welfare Clause in such a way as to conjure that authority out of thin air is to commit a blatant act of intellectual dishonesty.

In fact, regarding those words, “general welfare,” James Madison himself said: “To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

This also includes Medicare and Social Security, both of which are preparing to default on a massive scale thanks to the sort of bureaucratic mismanagement and fiscal shell games at which governments excel.

Of course, nowhere does the Constitution say that states cannot establish and bankrupt their own socialized medicine or retirement schemes. See: Massachusetts and California.

Drugs: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were hemp farmers, and drugs themselves have existed in various forms for thousands of years. They were certainly not unknown to the framers of our national government. Yet, excepting the (repealed) 18th Amendment, there is no mention of drugs or prohibition in the Constitution.

It is thanks to an expansive and unlimited interpretation of the Commerce Clause that the federal government now claims the power to ban certain substances. But in 1787, the Commerce Clause was worded to make trade regular between the states by preventing protectionist tariffs, not to give Congress the power to impose national standards of morality on the marketplace.

In recent years, some states have tried to reassert their authority on this issue, but a senselessly violent war continues to be waged by the federal government against the personal purchasing decisions of people in every state.

Marriage: The positive impact of creating social and financial bonds between consenting adults was likely as obvious in the eighteenth century as it is now. But the framers had a much healthier distrust of the federal government than we do today. They gave it no power to define marriage because the framers did not feel compelled to ask or grant the blessing of the federal government in forming private religious unions.

Neither do we need it today to legitimize private unions, religious or otherwise. But as long as both parties seek to engineer social policy through the federal income tax code, the issue of marriage will needlessly divide our country, and state governments will remain unable to fully implement their citizens’ will.

The list goes on and on, but the point remains the same: America was built on individualism and freedom of choice, and what’s right for one person or one state is not necessarily right for them all.

There is no way to make everyone happy with every law, but abandoning the futile and divisive quest for a “one size fits all” centralized government, and returning the states to their rightful role as competing laboratories of democracy is a good start.

Before America can rediscover the promise of her founding, people on both sides of the aisle must come to grips with the fact that the federal government does not exist to impose on the nation either the Right’s or the Left’s vision of freedom, morality, or social justice.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don’t eat meat.
If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is will take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.