Global Warming – Still Lying After All These Years

This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money.[1]

He's at it again! Al Gore, vice president under Bill Clinton, was interviewed over the weekend about global warming. The Minuteman Redux has already noted his hypocrisy; we now have the pleasure to report his latest spin:  He doesn't simply rail against those skeptical of man-made global warming theories, he compares the fight for global warming to the fight for civil rights in the South in the 1960s and implies that skeptics will one day be regarded the way intelligent Americans now view racists.  Racists?  Really?  Well, not impossible, if we assume that man-made global warming is a fact.  That, of course, is not an assumption we make.

Let's pull up a few facts about climate change that the Gore faction doesn't ever talk about [emphasis mine]:

The recent cooling observed after 1998 is probably caused by the Sun's activity, which recently dropped precipitously from its 60-year-long record in the second half of the 20th Century, the highest in the past 11 centuries, to an extremely low current level. . . . The unusually long period of low activity of the Sun suggests that we may be entering another Maunder Minimum, a period from 1645 to 1715 when almost no sunspots were visible. This was the coldest part of the Little Ice Age (1250-1900), when rivers in Europe and America were often frozen, and the Baltic Sea was crossed on ice by armies and travelers. [2]

What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages.  Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended. How much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the Earth's surface?  Less than a hundred years or several hundred?  We simply don't know. Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit — an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years.  While an enduring temperature rise of the same size over the next century would cause humanity to make some changes, it would undoubtedly be within our ability to adapt.  Entering a new ice age, however, would be catastrophic for the continuation of modern civilization. [3]

These are not crazy people; these comments come from respected journalists and scientists.

"But, what about the glaciers and the polar bears?"

Glad you asked.

Glaciers

The U.N. alarmingly claimed in 2007 that certain Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 – presumed victims of "global warming." It later retracted that absurd claim. Now a study by scientists at the University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of Potsdam, Germany, says most glaciers in the Karakoram range of the Himalayas are stable or getting bigger. It seems the mighty Himalayas shed debris on the glaciers, insulating them and preventing melting. While glaciers in other areas of the Himalayas have shrunk, "Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change," the authors wrote in the journal Nature Geoscience. That's something to remember when environmental activists insist that the science of "global warming" is "settled." [4]

By the way, if you're as old as I am, you might recall the late 1970s media hype about the coming Ice Age, including a Time Magazine cover story, and increasing glaciers back then. It seems like times don't always change.

Polar Bears

The polar bear (ursus maritmus or "sea bear" for the scientifically inclined), are on the verge of extinction, according to conservation organizations. Even the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) says there are only 22,000 to 25,000 bears remaining in the Arctic. But wait! You have to read the facts behind the story. An FWS report (along with a whole lot of additional information) is available on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee website, which indicates that 25,000 polar bears is not bad news:

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s.  A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations "may now be near historic highs."  The alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. And the methodology of these computer models is being challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts. [5]

That's a 100% to 500% increase in only two or three generations – polar bears start breeding between 4 and 8 years old and live about 25 years. I remind you, this is an official US government agency report to the United States Senate. Not the kind of thing you want to get wrong, if you like the idea of continuing as a federal employee.

I used to collect anti-man-made global warming articles. I gave up after collecting five or six dozen because it became so obvious that this whole thing was a load of manure. Much of the man-made global warming hype is based on their "hockey stick" graph.

This suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased since the beginning of the Industrial Age, leading some to conclude that this is why global temperatures have increased.  However, as we constantly see with liberals, the truth is far different than what they claim it to be:

If you look at the last 1,000 years, it looks like Al Gore is right (oh, what an awful thing to have to say, even in jest!).  If you look at the last 400,000 years, you see enough temperature change "hockey sticks" (the blue line) to keep the NHL running for a whole season. When you start with a false premise, your chances of reaching a true conclusion are pretty close to nil.

And that, friends, is what the whole man-made global warming house of cards comprises – false premises, bad science and media hype. As I said to a friend recently about the fall of global warming:

It wasn't the fact that the scientists claiming it were lying.
It wasn't the fact that the activists promoting it were lying.
It wasn't the fact that the politicians legislating it were lying.
It wasn't the fact that the journalists covering it were lying.
It was the fact that we found out about the lie!

Easy – and politically correct as it would be – I simply cannot subscribe to the notion that humanity has a bigger effect on Earth's climate than the 868,000-mile-wide thermonuclear explosion that is sitting 93,000,000 miles off our bow.

By the way, since I don't want to do all the work for you, I suggest you do some digging of your own to figure out what the eviro-wackos are up to, meaning, why are they promoting these lies? What's their end game, their goal? When you do, write me a note of 1,000-1,500 clever words and maybe you can win a spot as a guest commentator on the cyberspace equivalent of Lexington Green.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

[1] Caroline May, "Gore: Global Warming Skeptics Are This Generation's Racists," The Daily Caller

[2] Zbigniew Jaworowski, "The Sun, Not Man, Still Rules Our Climate," 21st Century Science & Technology Magazine. Spring 2009. <http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Sun_Climate_sp09.pdf>.

[3] Gerald E. Marsh, "The Coming of a New Ice Age," Winningreen.com, 2011. <http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm>.

[4] "Himalayan glaciers expanding?" Chattanooga Times Free Press, 14 February 2011. <http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/feb/14/himalayan-glaciers-expanding/>.

[5] "U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears," U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, January 30, 2008. <http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d6c6d346-802a-23ad-436f-40eb31233026>.

Liberal Vitriol

Vitriol (noun) bitterness Synonyms: acrimony, contempt, disdain, hate, hostility, malevolence, malice, nastiness, sarcasm, venom, virulence.

By now, you should've heard what Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said last week about the tea party movement. If not, here it is:

I’m not afraid of anybody. This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned — the tea party can go straight to hell.

The intellectual level of liberal debate is mind-boggling and Rep. Waters is far from the only one on this lofty level of discourse. There are those who would have us alter this discourse. In the wake of the Arizona shootings early this year, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said:

I think the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business and what [we] see on TV and how our youngsters are being raised, that this has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in.  And I think it's time that we do the soul-searching.

"Vitriolic rhetoric" is the stuff we don't say in polite company. It's also known as "hate speech" and a few other things. The implication we all got from this very liberal sheriff (if we were paying attention) is that this vitriol is the sole and exclusive product of conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, Sowell, etc. Likewise implied is that good liberals would never insult people the way conservatives do. They are the nice folks who treat everybody well, while conservatives are the one trodding on the downtrodden.
 

Well, like so many other claims made by liberals, this is a load of manure big enough to fertilize Nebraska! Allow me to share a few examples of the deep intellectuality that comprises liberal rhetoric:

I hate it when I wake up and Sarah Palin is still alive

I hate it when I wake up in the morning and Glenn Beck is alive.

–actual Facebook page titles

The Assassination of George Bush

–2009 novel (assassination is discussed but not attempted)

Death of a President

–2006 docu-drama depicting a Bush assassination

The Assassination of Richard Nixon

–2004 movie about a failed 1974 assassination attempt

It has become commonplace to call the tea party faction in the House “hostage takers.” But they have now become full-blown terrorists. They have joined the villains of American history who have been sufficiently craven to inflict massive harm on innocent victims to achieve their political goals. A strong America has always stood firm in the face of terrorism. That tradition is in jeopardy, as Congress and President Barack careen toward an uncertain outcome in the tea party- manufactured debt crisis.

—William Yeomans, "The tea party's terrorist
tactics," Politico.com, 29 July 2011

I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going.  Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.

—Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) to a group of
union members in Boston, 22 Feb 2011

Webster might survive a 9mm, but doubtful he’d survive a 50 cal. There’s a lot of 50 cals in Maine.  He should change his tune because a lot of people are really mad.

—Voicemail by unknown male to Maine Republican
Party Chair Charles Webster, 13 Jan 2011

The NRA should change their name to 'the Assassins Lobby' . . . if you love guns, just admit it like it's a vice, it's like alcohol or drugs or sex addiction or gambling.  It's just a vice . . . The 'right wing' loves the...the go-to rhetoric for them is "Wouldn't it be fun to kill the people we disagree with?" . . . Left wingers don't talk that way . . . and, also, left wingers, even if they do make a gun analogy or something, their audience isn't hysterical . . . [R]ight wingers . . . are already hysterical and are highly armed to begin with.

—Bill Maher, The Tonight Show,
11 Jan 2011 [emphasis added]

The Republican V.P. nom would be "gang-raped by my big black brothers" if she enters Manhattan, Bernhard said.  Palin is said to be making a campaign stop in New York next week. The gang rape comment "is part of a much larger, nuanced, and yes, provocative (that's what I do) piece from my show about racism, freedom, women's rights and the extreme views of Governor Sarah Palin, a woman who doesn't believe that other women should have the right to choose," Bernhard told the Daily News today.

—Tracy Miller, staff writer, "Sandra Bernhard issues
'gang rape' warning to Sarah Palin," New York
Daily News, 19 Sep 2008 [emphasis added]

I’m just saying, if he did die, other people, more people would live.  That’s a fact.

—Bill Maher, Real Time with Bill Maher, 2 Mar 2007,
on a failed assassination attempt on VP Cheney
during a visit to Afghanistan

I hear about Tony Snow and I say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you? Work for FoxNews, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?

—Charles Karel Bouley, Huffington Post, on
the Bush White House Press Secretary
who died from colon cancer in 2007.

And, of course, the pies-de-resistance, from the Great One himself:

To his Party:  "They bring a knife, we bring a gun"
To his supporters:  "Get in their faces!"
To his mercenary army:  "Hit back twice as hard."
To voters:  "Republican victory would mean hand-to-hand combat."
To liberal supporters:  "It’s time to fight for it."
To Latino supporters:  "Punish your enemies."
To Democrats:  "I’m itching for a fight."

–President Barak Hussein Obama II

Now, I know as well as anybody that the right wing has a few nutcases, just like the left. But, look carefully – the mainstream media doesn't report language like this from the right, because it is extremely rare. The left, which so often claimed the high moral ground, lied. Again.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

So, What Does the Iowa Straw Poll Mean?

The results —

1st	Rep. Michelle Bachmann	4,823 votes/28.5 percent.
2nd	Rep. Ron Paul	4,671 votes/27.6 percent.
3rd	Fmr. Gov. Tim Pawlenty	2,293 votes/13.6 percent.
4th	Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum	1,657 votes/9.8 percent.
5th	Retired CEO Herman Cain	1,456 votes.
6th	Gov. Rick Perry	718 (write in) votes.
7th	Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney	567 votes (2007 winner).
8th	Fmr. Speaker Newt Gingrich	385 votes.
9th	Fmr. Gov./Amb. Jon Huntsman	69 votes.
10th	Rep. Thaddeus McCotter	35 votes.

(Data based on 16,892 votes cast; results released 7:00 p.m. Saturday; about 2,500 above 2007, but well below the record 23,000 votes cast in 1999.)

The Analysis —

By now, I assume all of you have heard that Gov. Pawlenty dropped out, citing his poor showing. Actually, he polled very well, about 4 times the supposed-front-runner Mitt Romney – an embarrassing 3.35%! But, a lack of staying power is what kills campaigns. Glad we found out early. Also, Gov. Rick Perry tried to steal the news cycle by announcing his candidacy that day. Didn't quite work, although, his write in vote was 4.25%, which I'll call "respectable."

Newsmax.com made two interesting comments:

Paul’s 4,671 votes exceeded the vote total Romney collected in 2007, when he won the straw poll...

The Ames straw poll always attracts the eye of the national media, but only rarely does it accurately predict who wins the GOP nomination.

In 1980, for example, George H. W. Bush won the straw poll over eventual nominee Ronald Reagan. In 1988, 700 Club Founder Pat Robertson won the straw poll, while the elder Bush won the nomination. However, George W. Bush won both the straw poll and the nomination in 2000.

In 2007, Mitt Romney won the Iowa straw poll with 4,516 votes, which was 31.6 percent of ballots cast. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee placed second with 2,587 votes that year, representing 18.1 percent.

The Poll is no great indicator, says Michelle Malkin:

Not counting this year’s Straw Poll, this vote has been conducted five times since 1979. Three of those five Straw Poll winners also went on to victory the Iowa Caucus. One of the five went on to win the White House in the same election cycle.

CBSNews.com offered valuable insight:

Despite all this, the straw poll matters. A lot. Why? Because politics is a game of perception. And a win in the straw poll, meaningless though it may be, can fundamentally change how a candidate is seen by the media, the Republican establishment and the donors who make or break a campaign.

USAToday's editorial page had the best spin on the day, "Our view: Iowa's straw poll doesn't deserve mega attention." In many respects, that is true, but I'll editorialize by saying they just want to downplay the Bachmann win. The paper consistently publishes favorably toward Pres. Obama.

The most interesting comment, which I cannot credit because I heard it second hand, took a very different view of this poll. The pundit agreed that the results mean little, in the big scheme of presidential politics, but it does show something important — who can get their supporters out! That, of course, is the win, earning the support of voters and getting them to the voting booths. Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul really did the job this time. What the next few months will show is up in the air, but the bar has been set.

Of course, we have to note that there is one big monkey sitting out there that could yet be thrown into the works, and former Gov. Sarah Palin's hand is around that wrench. Will she announce? When will she announce? How effective will her campaign be? Will she recapture the American spirit the way she did in 2008?

Personally, my preferences are Bachman and Palin, and not just because both have great legs, but because both also have great minds and lots of intestinal fortitude in between. Paul is a non-issue to me, I usually like what he adds to the debate, but he is too libertarian to win the Republican nom. (I'd make him Federal Reserve Board chairman and tell him I want an audit followed by prosecutions, lots and lots of prosecutions!) I'm watching Santorum closely, he has possibilities. Forget Cain – also Gingrich, Huntsman and McCotter – their stars will fade rather quickly. (Though, if I won, I'd certainly consider Cain as Commerce Secretary, and I'd definitely send Huntsman back to China.) I think Perry and Romney will be contenders but will end up like Romney and Huckabee in 2008. (Perry is more a guess than anything, Romney I am sure will last no longer than he did last time.)

Every potential Republican presidential nominee has negatives; every one of them has positives. I hope America is thinking hard about which are more important.

Wow, political predictions – on record and in public! We'll see in about 8 months if my instincts are good.

This is what makes American politics fun.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

John Bowne & the Flushing Remonstrance

Two names which you have probably never heard before are the subject of today's post. Tragically lost to the commonly-known history of the United States of America, this man and this declaration paved the way for one of the greatest accomplishments of the Founding Generation.

The place is Vlishing (later mispronounced "Flushing") in New Amsterdam (now the Borough of Queens, New York City). The time is September, 1662. John Bowne and his family are startled by a banging on their front door. The 34-year-old English settler opens the door to find Sheriff Resolve Waldron and armed deputies. Waldron places Bowne under arrest. He is charged with aiding and abetting an "abomination" – Quakerism. The facts: Bowne's wife, Hannah, was a Quaker convert, and he allowed her and her friends to hold Quaker meetings in their home. (Bowne may also have been a Quaker, this is uncertain.)

Hauled before Director-General Peter Stuyvesant, Bowne is given several opportunities to pay the imposed fine and refuses. He refuses to renounce Quakers. Stuyvesant throws him in a dungeon then deports him to Holland. In Amsterdam, Bowne suffers through more than a year and a half of separation from his family. He and his family suffer physically, emotionally and economically. Finally, he is dragged before a tribunal of the Dutch West India Company, which had been chartered by the Crown to act as the civil government of the colony.

Bowne has but one defense – The Flushing Remonstrance.

"Remonstrance" – an act or instance of protest, from Latin remonstrare, "to point out."

Kenneth T. Jackson, professor of history at Columbia University, explains[1]:

[W]hen the Dutch West India Company set up a trading post at the southern tip of Manhattan in 1625, the purpose was to make money, not to save souls. Because the founding idea was trade, the directors of the firm took pains to ensure that all were welcome.

For example, while the Massachusetts Bay Colony was enforcing Puritan orthodoxy, there were no religious tests in the Dutch colony. So open was New Amsterdam that at least 16 languages were being spoken there by the 1640s; by 1654, the first Jews in what is now the United States had been able to settle there peaceably.

Unfortunately, Quakers "had a reputation as obnoxious rabble-rousers," so:

Peter Stuyvesant, the provincial director general and a Type A personality if ever there was one, was not going to tolerate a Quaker presence in his domain. To make his point, he ordered the public torturing of Robert Hodgson, a 23-year-old Quaker convert who had become an influential preacher. And then he issued a harsh ordinance, punishable by fine and imprisonment, against anyone found guilty of harboring Quakers. . . .

The public response was almost immediate:

Edward Hart, the town clerk in what is now Flushing, Queens, gathered his fellow citizens on Dec. 27 [1657] and wrote a petition to Stuyvesant, citing the Flushing town charter of 1645, which promised liberty of conscience.

The Remonstrance itself (without correction to modern spelling & grammar styles) opens with:

You have been pleased to send unto us a certain prohibition or command that we should not receive or entertain any of those people called Quakers because they are supposed to be, by some, seducers of the people. For our part we cannot condemn them in this case, neither can we stretch out our hands against them, for out of Christ God is a consuming fire, and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Wee desire therefore in this case not to judge least we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand or fall to his own Master. Wee are bounde by the law to do good unto all men, especially to those of the household of faith. . . .

This magnificent prose document concludes with:

Therefore if any of these said persons [Quakers] come in love unto us, we cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but give them free egresse and regresse unto our Town, and houses, as God shall persuade our consciences, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man. And this is according to the patent and charter of our Towne, given unto us in the name of the States General, which we are not willing to infringe, and violate, but shall houlde to our patent and shall remaine, your humble subjects . . .

Stuyvesant arrested Hart and others and, ultimately, forced the signatories to recant their protest. He probably thought this was the end of it, however, the genie was out of the bottle, as later generations would say.

Bowne's defense was simple: What he did, he did in obedience to the laws set down by the Company, and in protest of an illegal edict by Director-General Stuyvesant. It is worth noting that the Dutch West Indies Company officers agreed with Stuyvesant – in that they thought Quakerism was an abomination – but the Company officers were honorable men. They overruled their own appointee in favor of the Englishman, Bowne, because they could not deny that he was right. Bowne was returned home and instructions were sent to Stuyvesant to leave the Quakers in peace.

The Flushing Remonstrance is considered one of the precursors to the Bill of Rights, and John Bowne is considered, by those few who know his story, as the first sacrificial lamb of religious freedom in America.

"And now," as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story":

Bowne returned to his family, his business and his home. The 1661 salt-box house still exists. Expanded several times by his descendants, it is the second oldest building in New York City. Located on the corner of Bowne Street and 37th Avenue, not far from the Van Wyck Expressway, it became a museum in 1947. Within a few blocks are a Quaker meeting house, a Dutch Reformed church, an Episcopal church, a Catholic church, a synagogue, a Hindu temple and a Moslem mosque. Also a Bowne Park, John Bowne Elementary School and John Bowne High School.

(On a personal note, the neighborhood is also home to New York Medical Center Hospital – formerly Boothe Memorial Hospital – where I was born.)

The Bowne House Historical Society oversees the restoration and maintenance of the Bowne House Museum, which is  owned by the City of New York. You can contact them at 37-01 Bowne Street, Flushing, NY 11354; or visit them at bownehouse.org. Donations are tax deductible.

Bowne (1627-95) later served in the New York provincial legislature. He had three wives (in succession) and a total of 16 children. Among Bowne’s descendants are 4 New York City mayors and 6 US Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln. Family members were early abolitionists, and the house may have been a stop on the Underground Railroad. Robert Bowne (1744-1818) founded the oldest public company in the nation – Bowne & Co. – which is still in operation today. The family also produced a number of outstanding horticulturalists.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

[1] Kenneth T. Jackson, Op-Ed Contributor, "A Colony with a Conscience," The New York Times, 27 December 2007. (The 350th anniversary of the Remonstrance.)

Gayanashagowa — The Great Binding Law

The attention of the media, and most of Washington, DC, has been on the budget talks. Like me, you have probably had more than enough of that! So, let us have a little fun by departing from current events for a brief history lesson. Jeopardy! fans, take note, this may come up in a trivia contest someday:

What is "Gayanashagowa"?

When Europeans arrived, there were existing political powers in the New World as in the Old. The major power in the northeast was the "Haudenosaunee" – literally, "Long House People," later called "Iroquois" by the French. This union of the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida and Mohawk tribes – later called the Iroquois League – was inspired by a philosopher, Dekanawidah, his spokesman, Hayowentha, and a clan headwoman, Jingosaseh.

The date of their philosophical revolution is uncertain. Conventional archeological wisdom says sometime between 1450 and 1600, but recent research suggests their league may have formed as early as AD 1100. Dekanawidah had seen peace conferences effectively (but only temporarily) end numerous inter-tribal wars and he proposed that a permanent council, the "Kanononsonnionwe" or "Federation" be established to prevent war. Their argument was simple: The tribes were closely related by language and culture and, therefore, really were one nation. They should act as brothers, not sibling rivals.

It wasn't an immediate success; like later geniuses, the trio was considered insane by some, but the idea caught on. Eventually, a constitution was created, "Gayanashogawa" – the "Great Binding Law" or "Great Law of Peace." In 1720, the Tuscarora tribe was added to the League.

The League was well known to the Founding Fathers. Certain Federation Lords visited the Continental Congress on 11 June 1776.  The Lords were called brothers and assured that the delegates' hoped for a friendship between them to "continue as long as the sun shall shine" and the "waters run."  One Onondaga Lord requested permission to give John Hancock, President of Congress, a Tribal name – Hancock was called 'Karanduawn,' or the "Great Tree." [See paragraph 67.]

Possible Influences from the Great Binding Law on the US Constitution:

Paragraph 9: All the business of the Five Nations Confederate Council shall be conducted by the two combined bodies of Confederate Lords. First the question shall be passed upon by the Mohawk and Seneca Lords, then it shall be discussed and passed by the Oneida and Cayuga Lords. Their decisions shall then be referred to the Onondaga Lords, for final judgment. The same process shall obtain when a question is brought before the council by an individual or a War Chief.

Paragraph 11: If through any misunderstanding or obstinacy on the part of the Fire Keepers, they render a decision at variance with that of the Two Sides, the Two Sides shall reconsider the matter and if their decisions are jointly the same as before they shall report to the Fire Keepers who are then compelled to confirm their joint decision. [See also paragraph 12.]

Reads like Article I Section 7, in which laws must be passed by both chambers, the Senate and the House, then by the President to become law – it even includes both veto and override provisions.

Paragraph 13: No Lord shall ask a question of the body of Confederate Lords when they are discussing a case, question or proposition. He may only deliberate in a low tone with the separate body of which he is a member.

A clear statement on the concept of separation of powers.

Paragraph 18: If any Confederate Lord neglects or refuses to attend the Confederate Council, the other Lords of the Nation of which he is a member shall require their War Chief to request the female sponsors of the Lord so guilty of defection to demand his attendance of the Council. If he refuses, the women holding the title shall immediately select another candidate for the title. No Lord shall be asked more than once to attend the Confederate Council.

Reads like Article I Section 5 Clause 1, which allows the chambers to compel the attendance of absent members.

Paragraph 28: When a candidate Lord is to be installed he shall furnish four strings of shells [wampum] one span in length bound together at one end. Such will constitute the evidence of his pledge to the Confederate Lords that he will live according to the constitution of the Great Peace and exercise justice in all affairs. . . .

Reads like Article 3 Section 1 Clause 8 and Article VI Clause 3, which require an oath of every person serving in government.

Paragraph 78: Whenever a foreign nation enters the Confederacy or accepts the Great Peace, the Five Nations and the foreign nation shall enter into an agreement and compact by which the foreign nation shall endeavor to persuade other nations to accept the Great Peace.

Reads like Article IV Section 3 Clause 1, which authorizes the admission of new states into the Union.

Paragraph 97: Before the real people united their nations, each nation had its council fires. Before the Great Peace their councils were held. The five Council Fires shall continue to burn as before and they are not quenched. The Lords of each nation in future shall settle their nation's affairs at this council fire governed always by the laws and rules of the council of the Confederacy and by the Great Peace.

Reads like the 9th and 10th Articles of Amendment, which confirm that rights are retained both by the people and by the States within the Union.

Paragraph 99: The rites and festivals of each nation shall remain undisturbed and shall continue as before because they were given by the people of old times as useful and necessary for the good of men.

Reads like the 1st Article of Amendment, which prohibits the Union from establishing a national religion.

This is not to suggest that the Great Binding Law is the father of the Constitution. The US legal government is an adaptation of the British system; its direct ancestors are Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. However, the Iroquois were the most powerful native nation, controlling, at its height, most of the land bounded by the Connecticut, Ohio and Illinois Rivers and the Great Lakes. The Founding Fathers knew them, understood them (to a point) and treatied with them. Parts of Gayanoshogawa were even read to the Committee of Style at the Federal Convention of 1787.

The fact that a system existed with numerous similarities to the system the Founders knew and loved; the fact that this other system developed independent of theirs and had been operating successfully – possibly since before the Magna Carta was written – must have made an impression on those Founders. Some may have viewed it as evidence of the Divine Providence. Certainly, they should have realized that these governments were clear evidence they were on the right track and I'm sure it encouraged them to move forward.

It is, perhaps, most fair to call Gayanashagowa the "uncle of the Constitution."

For your amusement, we conclude with a few other influences of the Iroquois on the United States:

Their Tree of Peace was one inspiration for the 'Liberty Tree.'

Their 'Eagle-that-sees-far' was one inspiration for the eagle in the Great Seal.

In Dekanawidah's story, 5 arrows were bundled to represent strength through unity; 13 arrows are clutched in the talon of the American eagle. [See paragraph 57.]

Under the Great Law, clan mothers choose candidates (men) as chiefs.  Women owned land and homes and held a veto over any council action that could result in war.  These powers, far outstripping those held by American or European women of the time, inspired 19th-Century feminists Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others.

The Iroquois League of Six Nations still exists today.

 

The Iroquois comprise over 250,000 people on reservations in New York State, Ontario and elsewhere, and maintain their capital on Onondaga land near Syracuse NY.[1] The Mohawk and Oneida, in particular, are valued as structural steel workers because, unlike most people, they have no fear of heights.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

[1] Learn more at <www.sixnations.org>.