Friday, August 17, 2007


Regarding the two articles written by Oswald Czolgosz, which were printed in the Calgary Herald and The National Post, both have been removed from those papers' archives!

It seems the Globull warming initiative not only does not like challenges to its crap, they cause any written challenges to be disposed of.

I hereby publicly register my EXTREME surprise and disappointment that two of our national newspapers have stooped to censoring opinion and information.

WHEN did we become the new USSR?????


  1. Censorship indeed. Most of the Herald's stories from before 1997 are also not easily available on their website. That PROVES that the Herald is trying to censor HISTORY!!!1!!

  2. Just to respond: I agree that the national newspaper system, being owned by very few corporations, is largely directed in what they may and may not print or cover; however, anything that has been published is available, right up to the first paper (regarding the Herald) ever published. All one must do is go up to the Herald and ask for copies.

    That items are not available on line isn't necessarily proof that the paper is trying to rewrite or suppress history. Not necessarily, but maybe. There's no doubt there's an agenda at work. Who knows how deep that agenda goes....

    The greater issue is what these nationals choose to publish and what spin they put on them. I am well sick of the global warming issue because it is crap the way it's presented, as is the spin the nationals take on the 9/11 scandal.

    With the Herald, some of the issue may simply be staffing. Then again, maybe it's me being simple....

    Thanks for your comment!

  3. Having said all that, I DO really wonder why both those papers (and all the others in that system) removed said article.

    The article has been printed but yeah, it's not the website anymore....


    Corporations are the devil.

  4. C'mon
    the guys name was Oswald Booth Czolgosz.
    Oswald Killed Kennedy
    Booth Killed Lincoln
    Czolgosz Killed McKinley

    This is a real name?
    Yeah right...
    There is no one of that last name in the phone book.
    Retired teacher my ass, the reason that the stories were pulled is that the whole thing was a CON put on by the global warming deniers and Hilliard Fleishman who paid for the billboard in the first place.
    Thats why the story was pulled because it was a FRAUD of a story and the Herald fell for a FRAUD and were embarrased.

    Man, you need to get a grip, it was fake story.

  5. Distinctly possible that the newspapers were embarassed but the billboard did indeed exist.

    Isn't it interesting that 'journalists' didn't see the humour in the name, nor did they research it prior to just going after the story, which was interesting regardless.

    As to 'global warming' deniers, as the phenomenon is being presented, it is crap. Yes, the planet is warming but not by the means the machine would have us believe.

    Mr. Gore's film was deemed by the British High Court to have 9 significant errors....

    Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" for more info on how this issue is being used to scare the hell out of humans in the western world.

  6. speaking of censorship, I do realize it is your blog and you can post what you want but....perhaps you have a lot in common with the Herald.

  7. Not sure what you mean by my having a lot in common with The Herald. The Herald is a company, not an entity. It has no personality or characteristics of its own. The thousand or so people who work there certainly have personalities and yes, I probably do share some similarities with some of them. But to say that I have a lot in common with a corporate entity is strange.

    Are you implying that I censor somehow?

    Yes, it is my blog and yes, I reserve the right to say what I will AND to remove comments that are inflammatory, libellous/slanderous or just plain off topic.

    I recently removed a series of comments posted by two very angry writers. I also spoke to the school one attends (their personal info was posted) about their very treacherous comments, because I was concerned for my safety.

    The person in question is pursuing a career that will put them in intimate contact with many people, most of whom will not share his views, generally, as much as they might on occasion. I was appalled by the depth of this person's anger and that it was directed to me, rather than to the issue.

    I invite anyone to comment on the SUBJECT matter; I do, however, remove comments that are personal and that are essentially personal attacks because they serve only to make the writer feel better (if revenge can be characterised as 'better') but contribute nothing to the subject at hand.

    I invite you to elaborate on your comment, if I have not addressed here.

  8. I am referring to the fact that you did not post my response to your rebuttal of my initial post.

    Where I pointed out that you thought is was funny to use the names of presidential assasins.

    I really doubt that Al Gore or the Secret Service would find this funny at all. I imagine it would be of concern to them. Indeed I regard it as a tacit threat. Certainly a tactic that if it was used to you, imagine if I signed this with the names of a bunch of serial killers or rapists, would not accept. You would probably be very concerned if I did that, and I would argue rightly.

    Yet in the case of Gore you find it funny.

    The fact is this story was a fraud paid for and put out by a public relations firm hired by the global warming deniers to attack Gore.

    You know you make a big deal about the British Judge finding errors in the movie but you do not talk about the fact that the judge would not order the movie removed because he found it to be "over all factually accurate"

    There is no actual evidence of a conspirecy by the "global warming industry" as you put it.
    Here you have actual evidence of a fraud perpetrated by global warming deniers and you find it funny.

  9. Just a quick note here. The above writer has been prolific in his/her comments, and as much as I'm happy to post them all, the comments have now sliding off topic into argument.

    As I have said before and say again, I'm more than happy to post all comments that relate to and discuss the topic at hand. However, when those comments start to critize me, that's when they aren't posted here. This blog has at its soul the goal of fostering thought and reconsideration of event discussion but is not a place where people are welcome to grind their personal axes against me.

    I very much encourage writers with points to make to launch their own blog or to contribute those they already have. It is never my goal to censor anyone, but in the interest of keeping things on track, I don't post every comment received.

    I absolutely support your right to speak and to comment and to rant and rave and hope you too will never take for granted that any one of us with access to an interenet connection can launch a blog and say our piece without fear of government or private censor/censure.


You are welcome to leave your comments on the SUBJECT here; personal attacks and insults will be deleted.

Please feel free to discuss the issues. The stability or mental health of the blog writer is not considered a discussion issue....