Author Archive

"Global Warming" being blamed for winter snow, and it's all our fault for not worshipping the earth

Snow caused by global warming, say climate change alarmists

As the northeast is being blanketed in snow, environmental alarmists would like us all to know that global warming is to blame for all the cold weather.

Or is it climate change?  The name seems to change from one week to another.

Either way, we humans are all to fault.  Why?  Because of a naturally occuring gas called carbon dioxide – the same stuff we exhale.

Problem is, the people who say more snow is caused by global warming, er, climate change, also say less snow is caused by global warming.

And if you don’t believe that, you’re an ignorant rube.  Just ask the liberals at MSNBC (aka, the network of insane liberal hate).

Filling in for the always angry and self-important Keith Olbermann (is it me, or does that name sound suspiciously German?  Just sayin’), Sam Seder gave an explanation complete with the appropriate map.  Mediaite reported:

Seder’s explanation centered around a “weather report” from Countdown’s meteorologist…who also, conveniently, happened to be Sam Seder. Seder discussed the patterns that, in his mind, combined to form global warming denial: “a high pressure system…from the energy-producing states” mixed with “a strong front of ignorance sweeping up from down South” and “current of blustery hot air out of just one radio studio in Palm Beach, Florida.” It was a cute conceit and everything, but he probably could have done without the southern stereotyping.

As well as the gratuitous and snarky attack on Rush Limbaugh.

But there is another possible explanation that many in the so-called media seem to ignore.

Looking at the calendar, one finds the storm is taking place during a time of year most of us know as winter.

Those of us who live in the Pacific Northwest, for example, are quite familiar with this time of year, as it frequently produces cold weather and, yes, Sam, snow.

Imagine that.

But facts are irrelevant to those who arrogantly believe human beings cause changes in the weather.  Because it’s really not about science, it’s a belief based on a pseudo-religion. 

Remember, the recent Cancun summit on climate change opened with an incantation to the ancient Mayan moon goddess Ixchel.

Delegates at that meeting turned out to be so gullible they signed a fake petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide – water.

Adherents to the religion of environmentalism frequently refer to the planet as a living creature (Gaia) worthy of worship.  To them, human beings are a virus that needs to be controlled, limited, and ultimately eliminated.

If this sounds like hyperbole, consider something called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.  This is a movement dedicated to the principle that people should not have children.   If everyone follows this principle, eventually the human race will disappear and the planet will be saved.

Ted Turner, a fan of population control, does not go quite that far, but does believe there should be a global one-child policy similar to that enforced in China.

Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said that rich countries (read, the United States and Britain) need to adopt World War 2 style rationing and zero economic growth for twenty years in order to stave off disaster from global warming.

But nothing environmentalists propose will do any good.  Ever since the dawn of time the planet has experienced changes in climate.

Not a single socialist policy will change that, nor will all the UN delegates on planet earth make any difference.

The real goal of the environmental movement is the destruction of freedom and wealth in the Western world.

It is high time the snake oil peddlers of the climate change fraud be exposed for what they are – educated, useful idiots.

There’s a reason for all this snow, and it’s called “winter”.

Tax cuts for the 'evil' rich? You bet!

In a July statement to the House Financial Services Committee, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke expressed support for extending some of the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the beginning of 2011. Predictably, liberal pundits and politicians became apoplectic at the thought of some people being allowed to keep a little bit of their own hard-earned money.

Much has happened since then.  The American people returned the GOP to majority status in the House, and significantly reduced the Democrat’s stranglehold on the Senate. 

President Obama cut a deal with Republicans, then took to the teleprompter to compare the GOP to terrorist hostage-takers, and Democratic heads are exploding all over the country over the prospect that some people might get to keep some of their own money – a concept Democrats call “giveaways”.

Liberal Democrats seem to think that all money is theirs, and all jobs are created by government programs, and the media is all to happy to push that bit of propaganda.  After all, they see the American people as stupid sheep, so why not?

But with unemployment hovering around ten percent and the economy in a sustained downturn, tax cuts are the only real way to stimulate the economy and provide jobs.

To understand this, one must first realize who it is that pays taxes in this country. According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2007 the top one percent – that is, those who earn $410,096 or more – paid over forty percent of all personal federal income taxes. In the same year the bottom fifty percent – those who made less than $32,879 – paid less than three percent of all personal federal income taxes.

So, what happens when people get to keep more of their own money? They spend it; they invest in companies; they buy things like cars, houses and computers; they start their own companies and hire people. This provides the stimulus our economy needs, and has the added benefit of providing more revenue to the government.

Historically, every time taxes have been cut, the economy improves. This benefits everyone, naturally, as people have more disposable income and are able to purchase things or start businesses. When taxes were cut in the 1920’s revenue to the government increased by over 60 percent, and the same thing happened when President Kennedy cut the top marginal rate to 70 percent. President Reagan’s tax cuts caused revenues to increase by over 50 percent. 

In order to be truly effective in reducing the national debt, tax cuts have to be balanced with spending cuts. Congress needs to learn to live within its own means, just like every family and business in the country. Unfortunately, our current political class – aided and abetted by a sycophantic lapdog media – has rejected the lessons of history. They would rather peddle bumper-sticker slogans to get re-elected than deal with reality. 

Winston Churchill once noted that, “A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to pull himself up by the handles.”  The next time a liberal politician sheds crocodile tears over “tax cuts for the rich”, tell him or her, “you bet!” Let’s cut taxes on those who pay the lion’s share of the bill and who provide jobs for average Americans. While we’re at it, let’s cut taxes for everyone else. After all, it’s our money.

Related articles: 

Democrat calls for ‘crisis’ over tax rate compromise

Keith Olbermann compares tax rate compromise to Nazi appeasement

Incoming Speaker John Boehner says President showed him disrespect


Tax cut extensions fail Senate vote as GOP stands firm

Ranking Democrats demagogue tax cut issue

Two plans aimed at extending the Bush tax cuts for low and middle income workers failed in the Senate on Saturday.  The plans were put forward by Democrats as a way to paint Republicans as the party of the rich.

CBS News reported earlier:

“For a proposal to extend all expiring tax cuts on individuals with incomes of less than $200,000 a year and married couples making less than $250,000, the vote was 53-36.

“On a plan to renew tax cuts for all filers with incomes of less than $1 million, the vote was 53-37”

Both measures required a 60 vote margin to break a GOP filibuster.

CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Bob Fuss said “…Democrats want to make a political point: Republicans are so determined to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy, they’ll block them for everyone else.”

But Republicans argue that with unemployment now at 9.8 percent, extending the tax cuts are necessary to stimulate job growth.

Speaking from the floor of the Senate, Mitch McConnell said:

“According to the strange the logic of Democratic leaders in Congress, the best way to show middle class Americans that they care about creating jobs is to slam some of America’s top job creators with a massive tax hike…Today’s vote was an affront to the millions of Americans who are struggling to find work and a clear signal that Democrats in Congress still haven’t got the message from the November elections.”

Some Democrats, however, feel that unemployment checks are more beneficial to the economy than extending tax cuts to the businesses that create jobs.

In a bit of Orwellian Newspeak, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said:

What does it do to create jobs? What does it do to reduce the deficit? Unemployment insurance, the economists tell us, return $2 for every $1 that is put out there for unemployment insurance. People need the money they spend it immediately, for necessities. It injects demand into the economy; it creates jobs to help reduce the deficit.

Giving 700 billion dollars to the wealthiest people in America, does add 700 billion dollars to the deficit. And the record in history shows it does not create jobs, it does not create jobs.

By this logic, one could argue that if 9.8 percent unemployment is good, then 98 percent would be ten times better for the economy.

But many Americans have a different view.  A Rasmussen poll shows that nearly half disagree with Speaker Pelosi’s assessment.

A CBS poll of just over 800 people shows that most do not want tax cuts for those making over $250,000, but a Rasmussen poll shows most expect tax cuts will continue for everyone.

Democrats, however, appear tone-deaf to the message sent by voters in November.

Americans do not want more government spending, nor do they want never-ending unemployment checks.

But as Democrats continue to demagogue the issue, Republicans like newly sworn Mark Kirk of Illinios are standing firm.

Delivering the Republican address, Kirk said voters in the midterm elections demonstrated their distaste for any tax increases.

“The current leaders of Congress should not move forward with plans that were just rejected by the American people,” he said. “These leaders should not raise taxes and risk another recession. Instead, Congress should reduce spending and prevent another tax hike on American taxpayers.”


  • Tax cuts for the rich
  • The political class versus the electorate
  • The ‘party of no’ is really the party of freedom
  • John Boehner blasts Democrats stunt on tax vote
  • McConnell agrees to ban earmarks
  • Howard Dean attacks Tea Party as racist and unappealing to younger voters

    Howard Dean calls Tea Party racist and unappealing to younger voters

    If it’s a day ending in ‘y’, someone, somewhere, is calling the Tea Party racist.

    On Tuesday, it was Howard Dean’s turn.

    Speaking to students at Vanderbilt University, the former Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman said, “I think in addition to a bad economy, the Tea Party arose out of a discomfort with the demographic shift going on in this country,” according to an article at The Student Free Press

    Claiming the Tea Party consists “…mostly of white people 55 years and older”, Dean said the movement is bothered by what he calls a demographic shift to ethnic and social minorities.  In other words – Tea Party activists are nothing but old, racist white people.

    Dean offered no statistics or studies to back up his claim.

    The former Governor also said President Obama was “…elected overwhelmingly by voters under 35 years of age” and that the President has not lost any voters to the Tea Party.

    But an October study published by the New York Daily News tells a different story.  In a poll of over 2,200 college students, support for the President fell significantly since his election in 2008:

    Just 44% approve of the job Obama is doing, while 27% said they are unhappy with his job performance, according to a new Associated Press-mtvU poll.

    That’s a significant dip from the 60% who gave the president high marks in a May 2009 poll. Only 15% of college goers had a negative opinion of him back then.

    Most of those polled expressed frustration with the President’s handling of the economy, and his failure to live up to his campaign promises.

    In the recent election, Americans soundly rejected the progressive, far-left agenda being pushed by the President and the Democrats, but Dean said the GOP needs to reject the conservative values that got them elected:

    “The problem with Republicans in general is that they offend the younger generation with their attacks on gays and immigrants,” Dean said. “I don’t have much advice for Republican (presidential contenders) other than to abandon their right-wing social agenda.”

    In 2008, many bought into the “hope and change” snake oil peddled by the Democrats.  Many people voted without thinking about the consequences of that vote.  Now, after two years, “hope and change” is turning into “franks and beans”, as people across the country see the results of Obama’s socialist agenda.

    Dean also told the students that President Obama should not compromise with the Republicans.  One student agreed and said any such compromise would hurt the President in 2012.

    Professor John Greer told the Student Free Press:

    “Students got to hear a different take on the Tea Party and whether they agree with it or not is up to them,” Greer said. “But for them to be exposed to a different viewpoint is what this course is all about.”

    Hopefully, the Professor will let students hear from a representative of the Tea Party.

    Related stories:

    Memo to liberals: We are not racists for opposing Obama

    Poll finds majority of Republicans support Tea Party

    ‘Tea Party’ coloring book sparks death threats

    GOP wins big in State legislatures

    Liberal journalist compares Tea Party to Southern secessionists

    Video explains Tea Party beliefs

    Tea Party Rally in Pittsburg, PA

    In October, Bill Whittle of Declaration Entertainment released the first in a series of videos that explain who the Tea Party is and what it stands for.

    Since its inception, the Tea Party has been maligned, misunderstood, smeared and attacked by liberals across the country.  If you get your news from certain cable channels, you might think the Tea Party is just a tiny collection of angry white neo-nazis who hate the President because of his skin color.

    Indeed, liberal talk show hosts have called Tea Party supporters evil, racists, or worse.  The Tea Party has been called violent, although no proof of such violence exists.

    Recently, a company received death threats for publishing a Tea Party coloring book for children.

    In April, Seaton Motley of Newsbusters wrote of a Tea Party activist beaten up by SEIU thugs.

    And yet, the Tea Party is called violent.

    But the Tea Party continues to march, and has become a powerful force in conservative politics with its message of smaller government, lower taxes, and a return to basic Constitutional principles.  A number of Republican candidates backed by the Tea Party won their primaries and some are now preparing to take their place in the upcoming Congress.

    Democrats, hoping to capitalize on the popularity of the Tea Party, ran a fake Tea Party candidate for office in New Jersey, hoping to split the conservative vote.

    In the video, Whittle explains some of what the Tea Party is all about, and explains how the big government policies of the current administration have failed in the past.

    Whittle also explains that millions have died as a result of totalitarian regimes seeking their socialist uptopia.

    This video is a must-see for anyone who does not understand what the Tea Party is all about.

    Related stories: 

    The Political Class versus the Electorate

    Poll Finds majority of Republicans support Tea Party

    Jan Schakowsky: Quoting Constitution ‘Revolutionary plan’ by radical Republicans

    Tea Party rhetoric to blame for 1970 Kent State shooting, says Richard Cohen

    Socialist conference calls for cracking Tea Party heads

    In mid-November, a conference of Socialists gathered in New York to discuss strategies for advancing their cause.

    Part of that strategy seems to include violence against the Tea Party.

    In one breakout session, the leader admits to being militant and references a saying that refers to physical violence:

    In times of growth historically the Democrats were the party that wanted to at least mildly redistribute a little bit of wealth. They were willing to finance a few social programs, make a few concessions in the interest of preserving social peace and social stability. But now when they don’t feel like that money is available for them to distribute, they don’t do anything. And I think that, you know, we all want to raise people’s consciousness but we also want to fight people, right? So I think it’s like both things. And, you know, we want to, we want to fight people who are on the — who have signed up on the other side of the barricade who are fighting us, we have to fight them. This is — we’re a militant organization when it comes to the fight against gay bigotry, the fights against racism and sexism. The labor movement has this old saying, and I don’t know if you want to take it — is if you can’t open their minds, open their heads.

    Open their heads?  This clearly is not a reference to civil discourse or open debate, but is a call for naked aggression against those with whom they disagree.

    What is more shocking than the statement is the response of the audience, who laughed at the idea.  Do these people think advocating violence is funny?

    The leader of the group qualified his statement by saying:

    I don’t know if we want to take it quite that far in all the issues.

    No one asked what issues warranted deadly force, and no clarification was given.

    The speaker was also clear about his target:

    If we’re not fighters, we’re not going to recruit the people who are most affected by these. They are the ones who are going to fight. And especially you can point to the Tea Party, right?

    In recent days, Americans have been treated to calls for violence from a cable talk show host and a left wing cartoonist. 

    Recently, a Newsweek columnist implied the President should deal with the Tea Party the same way Abraham Lincoln dealt with the Confederacy.

    Clearly, the nation is divided in a way that has not been seen since the Civil War.

    What Americans need is a leader that can unite all of us, and soon – before rhetoric turns into open warfare.

    Audio/Video link available here


     Suggested by the author: 

    Global warming scientist calls for rationing, 20 years of no economic growth

    According to an article at the UK Telegraph, a global warming scientist is calling for World War II-style rationing and an end to economic growth in rich countries for a period of 20 years. 

    Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research wrote that rationing and zero growth was necessary to “reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow.”  The Telegraph quoted Anderson: 

    “The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said. 

    Among the changes Anderson suggested: 

    • Limiting electricity so people are forced to stay cold.
    • Buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long flights or gas-guzzling vehicles
    • Turn off the lights.
    • Limit food from far-off places.
    • Using public transportation
    • Wearing sweaters in winter

    Anderson admitted people would not easily be persuaded to make drastic cuts in their lifestyles, and made the ridiculous claim that halting growth would not adversely affect the economy. 

    According to the Telegraph, he said, 

    “I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.” 

    194 countries are meeting in Cancun to try and make a global “climate change” deal legally binding while working to “get countries to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 relative to 1990 levels.” 

    For years, environmental alarmists have raised the specter of armageddon to push their agenda.  The very people now screaming about global warming once claimed the planet was on the brink of an ice age. 

    The solutions presented then are eerily similar to those presented today – less freedom, less economic growth, and more intrusive government. 

    Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, says there are far better ways to address the issue than limiting economic growth and the use of fossil fuels. 

    In an op-ed posted at USA Today, Lomborg argues: 

    Fortunately, there is a way out of this impasse. Instead of trying to solve global warming by making fossil fuels cost more, why not concentrate on making the green alternatives cost less? If we could make solar and wind and other green energy technologies competitive with coal and oil, no one would have to be compelled to do anything — everyone would switch over in a heartbeat. 

    But the issue really isn’t about making other technologies available and affordable.  It really is about controlling people and cutting rich nations – like the United States and Great Britain – down to size.

     Related:  WH Science Czar seeks to ‘de-develop the United States’ using ‘free market’

    SEO Powered By SEOPressor