It’s so cold; it’s GLOBAL WARMING – No, it’s a HOAX!
[CWNewsONLINE.net]
April 10, 2013
By Justin Waldman
Last week I was listening when this young 13-year-old boy named Alex called Rush Limbaugh. Funny, how the Left Liberals get so pushed out of shape with people who don’t believe in “man-made global warming.” This call is reverberating across the media. And it’s all because of this call to Rush.
Why is the left so worried about a young boy doing his own research come to that conclusion? Just as Alex said, they do not want to believe the lie and the evidence. It’s also because of the AGENDA behind all of the proposed precepts that global warming is caused by carbon released into the air.
FACT: DID YOU KNOW THAT PLANTS DEPEND ON CARBON DIOXIDE TO SURVIVE? AND WE DEPEND ON PLANTS BECAUSE THEY PRODUCE OXYGEN.
Obama’s agenda includes getting into this global lie of climate change and man-made global warming is bad, therefore, we must do something about it. In his first term, the progressive Left tried to pass a law that would enact Cap and Trade, which would be a way to tax industry for carbon (CO2) pollution.
This “science” and it’s proponent politicians have been trying to make carbon units a “commodity” for trading. I know it’s hard to believe, but it’s true. Be like Alex and do your own research. This is why the progressive left is so afraid! It’s a hoax to make money.
That’s why there is this global push for “green” energy, carbon reduction, pollution taxes, etc. It’s all based on a lie. The University East Anglia emails have proved it. To me, this is rotten how the progressive Left still wants people to believe this LIE.
Media Matters enjoyed fundraising surge at start of Obama administration
[FoxNews.com]
Published February 15, 2012
Media Matters — Shown here is Media Matters founder David Brock.
Media Matters enjoyed a surge in fundraising after the start of the Obama administration — nearly doubling its revenues in the first two years of the president’s administration, according to tax returns obtained by The Daily Caller.
The Daily Caller found that Media Matters and its lobbying arm Media Matters Action Network raked in $14.6 million in 2010, compared with $8.1 million in 2009.
The nonprofit organization, whose tax-exempt status has been questioned by several lawmakers curious about its political activities, saw its fundraising on the rise, according to the latest available returns, even though about half of the groups earnings in 2010 came from just 21 donors, including two unidentified contributors who gave more than $1 million apiece.
Call the Liberals’ Bluff: Oil Subsidies Should Go
[BigGovernment.com]
Posted Nov 2nd 2011 at 2:01 pm
by Jamie Radtke
On “Meet the Press” Sunday, David Gregory asked Barack Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe, “Should government be playing venture capitalist to try to prop these interest–industries up [referring to Solyndra]?”
Plouffe’s answer: “Well, let’s step back for a minute. We have to win this race, you know, we–if we don’t win the clean energy race in terms of technology, innovation, and jobs, and cede it to other countries, we’re not going to have the century–we need this. It’d be like us ceding the automotive industry race or the Internet and computer race.” [emphasis mine]
What pure balderdash! I am sure that Henry Ford would not be happy to hear that the White House was taking credit for his successes – like inventing the assembly line. The success of the American automotive industry and Internet was not because the government subsidizing Henry Ford or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs; it was because private investors saw the value of their ideas.
David Gregory’s question goes to the heart of our economic train wreck. Where in the Constitution does it state that Congress should be playing the role of venture capitalist and funding one business over another? What authorizes the government to fund one particular business – whether it’s Solyndra or Exxon – with everyone else’s money?
Ethanol producers receive billions in government subsidies. What does it accomplish? It increases the price the farmers pay to feed their livestock, devours huge quantities of the corn supply (more than 40%), and increases the price of corn for American families and families around the world. How crazy is that – a government subsidy that drives up the cost of food?
Top 10 Failures of Obamanomics
BigGovernment.com
Posted Sep 23rd 2010 at 7:46 am
by Vince Haley
President Obama unveiled his latest economic proposal in Cleveland recently in a desperate attempt to boost the Democrats’ fleeting hopes of maintaining control of Congress this November. But after two years of massive government spending and job-killing policies, the damage has already been done and it’s clear this fall’s election will be boiled down to a simple choice: job killers versus job creators.
With unemployment at 9.6%, the American people are clamoring for candidates with a solutions-oriented agenda for job creation as an alternative to the job-killing policies of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine.
Intel CEO Paul Otellini described it this way: “I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”
Simply put, candidates who propose job-creating policies and show how their opponent’s policies are killing jobs will win decisively in 2010.
American Solutions has already put forth its Jobs Here, Jobs Now, Jobs First plan, so let’s examine the top 10 job-killing policies of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine.
1. $1 Trillion ObamaCare
Despite being law for less than a year, ObamaCare has already had a devastating impact on the economy. For example, Milwaukee-based Assurant Health is eliminating 130 jobs due to the new healthcare law, while one of Iowa’s largest companies, Deere & Company, said ObamaCare will cost them $150 million. AT&T, meanwhile, was hit with $1 billion in new costs related to the law. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. According to a study from the National Federation of Independent Business, within the first five years of ObamaCare over 1.6 million jobs will be lost because of the employer mandate alone.
2. $800 Billion Failed Stimulus
Despite having no basis in economics—and widely mocked as unserious—the Obama administration foolishly continues to claim the stimulus “saved or created” millions of jobs. However, for a far more accurate characterization look no further than the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which calculates that more than 2.5 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus became law. If you factor in jobs “lost and dislocated,” that number could be as high as 4 million.
3. Cap and Trade Energy Tax
According to the Heritage Foundation, Waxman-Markey, the House-passed version of cap and trade, could kill more than 1 million jobs per year, raise annual energy costs by $829 for the average family, and increase gasoline prices by $1.38 per gallon. The Senate version of cap and trade, Kerry-Lieberman, is equally destructive. A study by Chamberlain Economics found the Kerry-Lieberman bill would kill 522,000 jobs in 2015, and up to 5.1 million jobs by 2050. Families would also face an additional burden of $1,042 per year as a result of the bill.
4. 2011 Automatic Tax Increases
If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not extended by January 1, 2011, then a $3.8 trillion tax increase will hit every American who pays income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center, expiration of these tax cuts will increase the average tax filer’s burden by $1,368 per year. Additionally, analysts at Deutsche Bank predicted that GDP could drop by as much as 1.5% if the tax cuts expire. Just last week, 31 House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer indicating their support for extending all of the tax cuts.
5. $13 Trillion National Debt
If you add up the massive expansion of government outlined in this list and elsewhere, the national debt has increased by $2.4 trillion under President Obama’s watch to a total of over $13 trillion. Even worse, the White House projects the national debt to double by 2020 to over $26 trillion. As CBS News’ Mark Knoller wrote, “If you could buy stock in the National Debt, do it. It’s headed for the moon.”
Four States Can Stop Lame Duck Threat
BigGovernment.com
Posted Jul 31st 2010 at 11:01 am
by Phil Kerpen
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn made it official: Illinois will have a special Senate election just for the lame duck session. Thus Illinois joins Delaware and West Virginia (both having special elections) as the three states whose winners on election day will—barring a disputed election result—be seated for a lame duck session in December. A fourth, Colorado, is less clear but may also be in play.
The lame duck session looks increasingly likely—and increasingly ambitious. Sen. Kerry continues to stress that cap-and-trade will be on the agenda, and Sen. Harry Reid (who may be a lame duck himself after Election Day) confirmed it to the Netroots Nation audience, saying: “We’re going to have to have a lame-duck session, so we’re not giving up.”
Along with cap-and-trade, a lame duck will likely consider the recommendations of Obama’s deficit commission — a package that will include enormous tax hikes and could draw the support of some departing Republicans like Judd Gregg of New Hampshire George Voinovich of Ohio, and Robert Bennett of Utah.
And organized labor, seeing the lame duck as their last chance for a legislative return on their political investments for years, will also demand lame duck action.
Kerry-Lieberman Climate Bill Would Destroy Millions of Jobs, Cost Familes Thousands
PajamasMedia.com
President Obama has repeatedly told Americans he has three main policy priorities — rewriting health care, overhauling the financial system, and imposing a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He met his first goal and he’s closer than ever on the second; time is running out if he wants to meet the trifecta by the end of 2010. But make no mistake, the president and his allies in Congress are working hard to pass cap-and-trade before this year is up. The problem is that cap-and-trade bills are expensive, they inevitably cost jobs, and the American people know it.
Cleaning Up Obama’s Mess in the Gulf
BigGovernment.com
Posted Jun 30th 2010 at 9:27 am
by Todd Thurman
A lot of things have gone wrong in the last 72 days since oil started spilling into the Gulf, and very few things have gone right. Unfortunately, the oil spilling into the Gulf is only one of many, many problems in the Gulf. There are the obvious problems of extremely polluted water, the oil soaked animals, the oil soaked beaches, the loss of tourism, the loss of jobs, and the loss of faith in the process that is supposed to ensure things like this never happen. But, why hasn’t the oil been cleaned up? Why is the leak still spewing oil into the Gulf? BP has their fair share of blame, but so does the federal government.
The government has had a lot of missteps. The EPA would not allow ships to skim oil from the water because they couldn’t get 100% of the oil out. They could only get 99% of the oil out. They failed to get rid of the horribly outdated Jones Act that forbids foreign vessels from helping us clean up the gulf. There have been plenty of problems with the way the Federal Government has reacted to the oil spill, but it’s never too late to start getting it right.
The Heritage Foundation has put together a list of things the Obama administration can do to mitigate the damage that the oil slick can still do. These are steps that can be taken immediately, and more items will be added to the list when appropriate. Simple things like waiving the Jones Act (as the Bush Administration did during Katrina), or accepting international assistance. Or allowing ships like the S.S. A-Whale–that has the capability to skim 500,000 barrels a day– to immediately start assisting efforts. It’s in the Gulf now, but it is still not being used.
Obama Gives Political Speech Not Presidential Address on Oil Spill
FloppingAces.net
Posted by: Mike’s America @ 9:53 pm, June 15, 2010
Day 57 of the OIL SPILL
Obama gave his first Oval Office address tonight, but it sounded more like a political speech than a presidential address.
First, the fingerpointing. From the White House transcript:
One place we’ve already begun to take action is at the agency in charge of regulating drilling and issuing permits, known as the Minerals Management Service. Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility — a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations.
Yeah, it’s Bush’s fault. That’s getting stale. Besides, it was HIS director of the Minerals Management Service, a Harvard environmental lawyer, who was fired for apparently not doing her job. Was she taking bribes? Is so, prosecute her.
Mitch McConnell Remarks on Obama’s Speech
FloppingAces.net
Posted by: Skye @ 7:20 pm, June 15, 2010
Remarks by Senator Mitch McConnell on tonight’s speech addressing the BP spill by Obama:
Most Americans are baffled by all this. The crisis as they see it is a broken pipe at the bottom of the ocean, miles-long oil slicks, and threatened coastlines. The first thing they want to know is what the administration plans to do to plug the leak, clean up the oil, and mitigate the spill’s effects on the livelihoods of those affected.
And yet day after day, as the oil continues to flow, what we hear about from the administration is how tough they plan to be with BP and now, apparently, how important it is that we institute a new tax that will raise energy costs for every single American but which will do nothing to plug the leak. Never has a mission statement fit an administration as perfectly as Rahm Emanuel’s “never allow a crisis to go to waste.” Climate change policy is important, but first things first.
Americans are saying two things at the moment: stop this spill and clean it up. So with all due respect to the White House, the wetlands of the Bayou, the beaches of the coast, and our waters in the Gulf are far more important than the status of the Democrats’ legislative agenda in Washington. Americans want us to stop the oil spill first. And until this leak is plugged, they’re not in any mood to hand over even more power in the form of a new national energy tax to a government that, so far, hasn’t lived up to their expectations in its response to this crisis.
In addition to additional taxes, Obama creates another Czar – Meet the Drill Czar. Is Obama trying to create a court rivaling that of European royal households?
For the life of me, I could not find a plan of action through the thicket of finger pointing, the cap&tax sales pitch and a tax increase proposal. Perhaps someone could point out the plan in Obama’s speech? Let me know, leave a comment below.
The Fundamental Transformation of America! IT MATTERS!
From: Conservative Viewpoint Blog
Posted by Producer in Congress & Government, December, Website Archive
Obama the Socialist?This is quite a list!
When Hussein Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist, people said it didn’t matter.
When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialists, sent Obama’s mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama, people said it didn’t matter.
When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims,
people said it didn’t matter.
When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” people said it didn’t matter.
When he admittedly, in his book,said he chose Marxist friends and professors
in college, people said it didn’t matter.
When he traveled to Pakistan , after college on an unknown national passport,
people said it didn’t matter.
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996
as he ran for the Illinois Senate, people said it doesn’t matter.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America
and preach black liberation theology, people said it didn’t matter.
When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the
distinctive title as the “most liberal senator”, people said it didn’t matter.
When the Palestinians in Gaza, set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign,
people said it didn’t matter.
When his voting record supported gun control, people said it didn’t matter.
When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done,
people said it didn’t matter.
When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez,
people said it didn’t matter.
When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn’t matter.
When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn’t matter.
When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question,
people said it didn’t matter.
When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry,
people said it didn’t matter.
When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught
to sing his praises, people said it didn’t matter.
When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance,
people said it didn’t matter.
When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion,
pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition
people said it didn’t matter.
When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues,
people said it didn’t matter.
When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination,
people said it didn’t matter.
When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him,
people said it didn’t matter.
When the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate,
people said it didn’t matter.
When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison
and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home, people said it didn’t matter.
When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected,
people said it didn’t matter.
When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist,
people said it didn’t matter.
There’s more, please continue reading…
Weird science: East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data
From: HotAir.com
posted at 11:00 am on November 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
When would scientists expecting the world to take them seriously throw out the raw data on which their conclusions are based? Probably at the same time that they e-mail each other to launch professional vendettas against skeptics and conspire to hide contradictory data. The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit — already in a deep scandal over the e-mails released by either a hacker or a whistleblower that shows highly unscientific behavior behind the scenes — now admits they threw out the raw data on which much of their theories on anthropogenic global warming are based (via Fausta):
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
So now the only data that other scientists can check are those that have been, er, adjusted by UEA-CRU. Were those “adjustments” proper? Did they have a scientific basis for making those adjustments? Were there any gaps in the data?
Cross-Examining the Climate Change Scammers
From: BigGovernment.com
A trial lawyer reading through the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) will immediately, almost unconsciously, begin generating a list of questions he would love to ask the authors if he were able to face them on the witness stand and under oath. The beauty of the adversarial process is how cross-examination tests and challenges the other side’s position – precisely what the emails indisputably show the CRU and its allies in the climate change scam have gone to shocking lengths to avoid.
There are several lines of examination that come immediately to mind. We can rest assured that it will never happen – as the emails show, the last thing they want to do is be in a position where they have to explain themselves. But certainly asking leading climate change cheerleader Phil Jones about his email describing his use of a “trick” to describe the manipulation of observed temperature data to “hide the decline” in order to achieve the desired result would be amusing:
- So, Dr. Jones, when you used the word “trick,” you really meant that it was not a “trick” at all but a valid, scientifically recognized process of data interpretation?
- Can you identify another instance in your experience where a scientist described his valid, scientifically recognized process of data interpretation with a term commonly used to describe a hoax, scam or fraud?
- And when you wrote the words “hide the decline,” is it now your testimony that when you used the word “hiding,” you were not actually “hiding” anything, and moreover, though you used the word “decline,” there was no “decline” in temperatures to be hidden in the first place?
- So, if I understand your explanation, it is that you commonly use language in your communications which means precisely the opposite of the meaning that you are seeking to communicate?
- And if an email from those who disagree with your findings – who you call “deniers” or “skeptics” – were to be made public that described their use of a “trick” to “hide the increase” in temperatures, would you find this to be of no great import because scientists commonly describe their processes as “tricks” and that their act of “hiding the increase” must be purely benign based on the manner of usage you describe?
- So, is it only proponents of man-made global warming that habitually use words and phrases that mean precisely the opposite of their common usage to describe their work?
Obama’s Approval Continues to Crater!
From: FloppingAces.net
Posted by: Mike’s America @ 7:18 am 11-24-2009
The reason? Perhaps voters feel he makes Jimmy Carter look competent by comparison!
The biggest gap yet in the Rasmussen approval index:
Get your update to the daily Gallup index which also has Obama in a steep downward trend.
What’s driving this? One factor may be growing disapproval of the Democrat’s plan for a government takeover of health care. The latest Rasmussen poll shows 56% oppose the plan while only 38% support it.
____________________________________________
Staffer Comment: Call it sticker shock, bait and switch, disguised socialism, marxism in a can, you got what he paid for, buyer’s remorse… I didn’t vote for him; we conservatives saw this coming, we made loud noises but the “state controlled media” called the MSM got your eyes and eyes!
Barbara Boxer’s Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax Won’t Work
From: BigGovernment.com
by Chuck DeVore
What is Cap-and-Trade? Cap-and-Trade is a political scheme ostensibly aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions with the goal of reducing the global temperatures.
With a Cap-and-Trade law in place, the government would set a yearly greenhouse gas emission target (carbon dioxide is the most common man-made greenhouse gas, you are exhaling right it now) and would reduce that yearly ceiling over time. This is the “Cap” of Cap-and-Trade.
The “Trade” part of this scheme comes in when the government (read: politicians) gives out greenhouse gas emission credits, valued at billions of dollars, to favored industries. So, industries with greater credits than emissions would be able to sell their valuable credits (basically, a right to emit greenhouse gases) to those industries (such as the coal industry or the oil and gas industries) which would need the credits to stay in business.
Over time, the government makes money, commodities traders make money, such as those on the Chicago Climate Exchange (yes, it exists, they make money trading carbon dioxide credits), politically favored industries make money (such as those former Vice President Al Gore has invested over $100 million in), and the rest of us get hit with the bill – up to $2,000 per family per year of higher energy costs. Thus, Cap-and-Trade is actually a huge energy tax on working Americans.
Senator Barbara Boxer is in charge of pushing the Cap-and-Trade energy tax scheme through the Senate. She says that Cap-and-Trade will create American jobs and reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. She is wrong on both counts.
Gov. Perry: Cap-And-Trade Would Harm Texas
| NEWSMAX – AP
|
||
|
||
| AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Rick Perry told renewable energy industry officials that a cap-and-trade climate bill in Congress would increase taxes and devastate the state’s energy sector.Perry, contending that the climate bill would mean “economic disaster” in Texas, said the state is encouraging alternative energy sources while improving the environment.
He told the Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association on Monday that the state is achieving those goals through incentives and innovation. He said the federal climate legislation would negate the work the state has done. Environmentalists see cap-and-trade as the best way to control carbon emissions. Perry said Texas is a world leader in wind energy production and said progress is being made to spur production of solar, biomass and other alternative energy sources. © 2009 Associated Press. |
||
CWNews Posted Comments