Tag Archives: Al Gore

CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS

In 2015, then President Barack Obama signed into law, the Clean Power Plan to slow the rate of climate change or global warming. It was to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants. According to townhall.com, it was the first action of the United States government to do so.

Earlier in the week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, directing the EPA to abolish this legislation. As you can imagine, the left went bonkers.

John Hawkins, in an article on townhall.com, entitled, 5 Reasons It’s Dumb to Panic Over Global Warming, listed quotes from some well-known liberals. Van Jones, Communist, and Obama’s special advisor for Green Jobs, was quoted as saying, “Trump may have just signed a death warrant for our planet (at least, a planet that is livable for humans). And the lies he told to justify it have real consequences for real Americans, her and now.”

Another quote, this time from our friend, Michael More: “Historians in the near future will mark today, March 28, 2017, as the day the extinction of human life on earth began, thanks 2 Donald Trump…Trump has signed orders killing all of Obama’s climate change regulations. The EPA is prohibited henceforth from focusing on climate change.”

Mr. Hawkins points out that the left doesn’t worry about deficits, terrorists, health care costs, out of control spending, teachers’ unions’ strong-hold over public education, the government’s out of control spending, etc. Instead they freak out and the possibility of the planet burning 100 years from now.

The 5 reasons not to panic over climate change/global warming are as follows:

1.There is Actually No Scientific Consensus on Global Warming. Whenever any of us conservatives indicates that climate change/global warming is a hoax, particularly man-made climate change, the left always throws out that 97% figure representing the percentage of scientists that think that man-made climate change is real. Mr. Hawkins says that’s simply untrue, and reflects that, “A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1862 members who responded, 59% stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed to the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter, 23 percent, said enough is not yet known to make a determination.” Then last year, it was found that nearly six in ten climate scientists didn’t adhere to the so-called consensus on man-made climate change, per a study by the Dutch government.
2.Even if Global Warming is Happening and Mankind is Responsible, it may still make Sense to do Nothing. Former Secretary of State John Kerry, called climate change, “perhaps the most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” and claims that unless we act, it could pose “the most catastrophic, grave threats in the history of human life.” Yet the UN Climate Panel found that the total cost of climate change by the 2070s is less than 2% of GCP. This means global warming is a problem, but is not by any means the end of the world. Its cost is equivalent to a single year of recession over the next 60 years. This comes from Bjorn Lomberg, of nationalpost.com in an article dated September 23, 2014. When you compare the threat, which we’re not sure is actually a threat, of climate change to what the world faces now, we acting like the person who is seriously injured in an automobile accident, but obsesses over the fact that her new Vera Wang dress was ruined.
3.Global Warming Theories are more Art than Science. Mr. Hawkins reminds us that we live in a world where scientists cannot tell us for sure whether it’s going to rain tomorrow, but we still have people assuring us of what the weather is going to be like in 100 years. Climate models used by scientists to predict how much human activities will warm the planet have been over-predicting global warming for the last six decades, according to a recent working paper by climate scientists, Michaels and Knappenberger. Climate models used to predict global warming have been consistently and egregiously wrong for decades.
4.We Don’t Have a Good Way to Even Know What Temperatures Were Centuries Ago. You often hear claims that every year is supposedly the “hottest on record.” Yet, we only started doing meaningful worldwide measurements in 1880, and many of those early numbers are considered to be unreliable. It’s been a mild winter in central Alabama. In fact, there have been very few days that I wore a winter coat, but do work out of my home. There were probably some days that I just didn’t go outside. We broke and came close to breaking a number of records for highest temperature on a number of days. It seemed like most of those record-breaking or near record-breaking days went back to the early 1900s. This leads me to think that we many have been in a warm cycle similar to the one that some say we are in today, back then. Also, when I was growing up in the North Alabama town of Cullman, about sixty miles north of where I live now, we would have at least one three to six-inch snow every winter. That’s not happening now, although Cullman did have about a three-inch winter before last. When I was in high school, our regular football season ended the first week in November. For the last two or three games, it was always cold. Now it’s not, leaving me to conclude that our climate is cyclical.
5.We’re in the Middle of a Global Warming Pause. Mr. Hawkins questions how we can be in a pause if liberals are claiming that we just broke a new record with every passing year. Because these “record-breaking years” are within the statistical margin of error.

To a reasonable and prudent individual, the above should bring to the conclusion that the validity of climate change/global warming is unconfirmed and questionable. Yet, folks like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Gina McCarthy all have insisted on many different occasions that “it’s settled, climate change/global warming exists.

Furthermore, these are other far-left zealots won’t even acknowledge studies or new statistics that affirms otherwise.

I know you’re probably tired of reading this, but I’m not going to stop. If Democrats, liberals, progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves, were the champions of the middle class and lower income individuals they claim to be, they would jump at any chance to disprove climate change, and not be in such a whirlwind to snatch us off of fossil fuels, a source of inexpensive and reliable energy, and transition us to the more expensive and unreliable green energy sources.

Facebooktwitter

YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE

It’s the day before what is termed by many, the most important presidential election of our time. Those who don’t pay that much to politics or current events will remind us that this is always said before every presidential election. And they’re probably right.

In the 2008 presidential election, the American people make the biggest voting mistake of their lives in electing the most liberal president ever by a substantial majority. In the 1988 presidential election, the American public overwhelmingly defeated the most liberal presidential candidate ever to run to date, Michael Dukakis. Then in 2000, the country was split between conservative George W. Bush and liberal Al Gore. Thus, the country moved rapidly to the left in the twenty years between 1988 and 2008.

Tomorrow Americans once again go to the polls to elect the person who will be our leader for the next four years. Leading up to this election day, there have been many stories in the media regarding how liberals are changing votes from Republican to Democrat on the voting machines during early voting. We’re also hearing reports that Democrats are going behind closed doors and filling out fake absentee ballots for stuffing in the ballot boxes. Of course, there will be dead people voting, all voting Democrat. This has been happening for decades.

Yes, I’m discouraged by this and all the other shenanigans pulled by Democrats, liberals, progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves these days. It makes me wonder if we will ever have a fair election again. And it also makes me wonder if we are even a free country.

An article published on wnd.com, it is hinted that President Obama is encouraging illegal aliens to vote in this election. I don’t know if the current president is doing this or not. However, in the article, he certainly indicates that the rule of law doesn’t matter to him (so, what else is new). Obama Encourages Illegals To Vote. In an interview with the Latin-oriented You Tube channel, mitu’, millennial actress Gina Rodriguez asked Obama should millennials, dreamers, and undocumented citizens be fearful of voting. If she votes, should she be scared that immigration will come for her or her family and deport them.  Obama replies, “Not true and the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential. “

I don’t know which of these two is the dumbest. Obama is actually not dumb, he’s just a lawless hater of the United States of America whose intent as president was to either destroy this country or weaken this country to the extent that the next liberal president could finish the job. Was Gina Rodriguez indicating that she was an illegal alien? It doesn’t make any difference if you’re coming into the country and taking the correct path to citizenship or if you are here illegally, you’re not a citizen and you can’t vote.

Furthermore, even if you are a citizen, natural born or naturalized, you will have to register to exercise your right to vote, and in many states, you have to show a proper ID to vote. Yes, voting is a right for all American citizens, but with that right comes responsibility. You do have to register and make sure you register in a timely manner. You also have the responsibility to determine where you should go to exercise your right to vote. When you show up at the poll, you should also have a valid ID with you to prove who you are.

Liberals have continuously fought requiring an ID to vote. Also, they have hinted that they are okay with convicted felons, and illegal aliens voting. Could they possibly be in favor of dead people voting? I wouldn’t be surprised.

But if this Rodriguez chick is so scared that the authorities may track her down and deport her because she voted, then that’s all the more reason to keep the system we now have. You register and you bring a valid ID when you exercise your right to vote. Do it the right way and you’re not going to get in any trouble.

It would be nice, though, if you knew something about the candidates and the issues when you show up at the polling place. Voting on the basis of gender and skin color is not smart. And yes, I know, there many people who have no idea or who simply don’t care about the issues facing this country or their particular locality. I can probably name you as many as ten folks who I know personally who know nothing about the issues. These folks voted for Obama because he’s black and they’re voting for Hillary because she’s a woman and/or has promised to carry forth Obama’s policies.

Facebooktwitter

TEACHERS’ UNIONS – OPPRESSOR OF BLACKS AND OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR

The failure of public schools to properly educate American students, particularly nonwhite minorities, can be attributed largely to the policies and priorities of teachers’ unions. This is according to the website, discoverthenetworks.org.

The largest teachers’ unions in America today include the 3.2 million member National Education Association (NEA) and the 1.5 million member America Federation of Teachers (AFT). Devoted to promoting all manner of left-sing political agendas, these organizations rank among the most powerful political forces in the United States today. Forbes magazine routinely ranks the NEA among the top 15 in its “Washington’s Power 25” list of organizations that wield the greatest political influence in the American legislative system. The Association has earned that rating, for the most part, by making almost $31 million in campaign contributions to political candidates since the early 1990s. The AFT has given more than $28 million to its own favored candidates. Furthermore, these figures do not include expenditures on such politically oriented initiatives as television ads or “get out the vote” efforts.

If the $59 million in combined NEA and AFT campaign donations, more than $56 million has gone to Democrats. This imbalance reflects only the political leanings of the union leaders, not the rank and file school teachers. Surprisingly, just 45% of public school teachers are registered Democrats, and more NEA members identify themselves as conservatives (27%) than liberals (21%).

The NEA derives most of its operating funds from the member dues that, in almost every state, are deducted automatically from teachers’ salaries. Because member dues constitute the very lifeblood of the teachers’ unions, the latter strive mightily to avoid losing any of those members regardless of their professional competence or lack thereof. Even in school districts where students perform far below the academic norm for their grade levels, and where dropout rates are astronomically high, scarcely one in a thousand teachers is ever dismissed in any given year.

In most states, teachers are automatically awarded tenure after only a few years on the job. Once tenured, even the most ineffective and incompetent instructors can have long and relatively lucrative careers in the classroom if they wish to stay in the field of education. For example, between 1995 and 2005, just 112 of the 43,000 tenured teachers in Los Angeles lost their jobs, even though 49% of the students in their school district failed to graduate from high school. The story has been much the same elsewhere.

In addition to aggressively defending the rights of incompetent instructors, the teachers’ unions have likewise objected to merit pay proposals that would reward good teachers and punish bad ones. When Florida legislators in 2009 called for a merit pay system, the head of the state teachers’ union accused the lawmakers of punishing and scapegoating teachers and creating more chaos in Florida public schools. When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie suggested a similar arrangement for his state in 2010, the teachers’ unions asserted that his effort was intentionally designed to demean and defund public education. In Chicago, union officials have argued that merit pay programs can narrow curricula by encouraging teachers to focus on testing.

Teachers’ unions also oppose voucher programs that would enable the parents of children who attend failing inner-city public schools to send their youngsters, instead, to private schools where they would have a better chance to succeed academically.

While progressive democrat politicians, who receive much financial support from teachers’ unions, are opposed to school voucher programs, they continue to send their kids to expensive private schools.  When former Vice President, Al Gore, who was asked why he opposed school vouchers for black children, while sending his own son to a private school, he said, “If I had a child in an inner-city school, I would probably be for vouchers too.”

Everyone reading this article probably has one or more friends who are public school teachers and members of one or more teachers’ unions. Low pay appears to be the major gripe of public school teachers, and here in Alabama, teachers do have a reputations of being only concerned with pay and not concerned with teaching our children. They agree that there are problems in the states’ public schools that need to be fixed, with their solution being just give us raises and we’ll fix the problems. Most of us who work in the private sector have to perform adequately before we are given raises by our employers.

I have observed over the years that public school teachers are very inflexible when it comes to new and innovative ideas for improving the quality of education. As indicated above, they are against a voucher system which would allow students who would, because of residence, have to attend failing schools, be given vouchers to attend private schools. Furthermore, public school teachers are against any type of home schooling, even though home schooling has been proven to be successful.

The only method of teaching they appear to advocate is that which occurs in a school room where there is one teacher and possibly an aid teaching a small group of students. During the technological revolution (1989 to 2005), the teachers I knew were adverse to any kind of modern technology and resisted any kind of change to their methods of operation.

Those of us who have been in the workplace for years know that “ways of doing things” are constantly changing. Think back to that first job you had out of college then fast-forward to today. Wow!

Like Social Security, certain parts of teacher compensation packages are considered “sacred cows.” Don’t you dare even whisper about changing them. If you suggest making changes or that changes might be coming, you’re automatically accused of being against public education and hating school teachers. Sound familiar?

In many states across the nation, including in my state, Alabama, it has been suggested by private financiers that fully funded retirement systems might not be able to sustain themselves. For those currently drawing retirement benefits, those benefits won’t change. But for younger state employees, retirement funding might have to change. Public school teachers, including union leaders, have demonized anyone who suggested that changes might be needed in the future.

Most public school teachers I know vote Democrat and hate Republicans. They vote Democrat because Democrats promise to procure higher salaries and better benefits for them. It’s been this way for decades and nothing for teachers seems to have improved.

While towing the liberal line along with having an inflexible attitude toward change by members of teachers’ unions, is most certainly oppressing blacks and people of color, because so many who are falling into these groups do not have the means to send their children to private schools or the time to home school their children.

Have the leaders of teachers’ unions, along with the rank and file members, ever thought about listening to what private enterprise is suggesting for improvements. Maybe if they did, both sides could use their expertise and influence to create a robust public education environment. Sadly, though, I’m not holding my breath.

Note: Much of the information provided for this article was taken from discoverthenetworks.org.

Facebooktwitter

TERRORISM SOLVED!

According to breitbart.com, the French edition of the Huffington Post went full-Guardian with its response to Friday’s massacre in Paris, insisting there were several undeniable links between these barbaric and fascist acts by radical Islamists and the climate.

Oliver Lane of Breitbart, in an article entitled “Huffpo: Combating Climate Change is the Best Way to fight ISIS,” indicates that mass casualty terror attacks seem to have a strange side effect of sending the leftist Twitterati into a spin, leaving them totally off-note and publishing inappropriate, tone-dear nonsense. Salon was dishing up family size portions of it almost immediately, rushing out a Saturday editorial linking Islamist murder in Paris with the American right and Fox News and #BlackLivesMatter.

The French edition of the Huffington Post, in an article entitled, “A Successful Climate Change Conference is the Best Response to ISIS Brutality,” acknowledges that ISIS has declared war on us all. As a result, the only thing that matters from now on, as a response to terrorism, is a security reinforcement and a re-examination of our priorities. The Huff Post article, written by Corrinne LePage, goes on to indicate that the war that’s been declared on us is also psychological.

The report released by ISIS to claim the massacre in Paris uses all the tools of conditioning and psychological manipulation: a turning of tables, presenting the Islamic State as a victim instead of an assassin, while promising to continue to spread terror, and criticizing policy makers for creating internal divisions, a criticism intended to bring about self-doubt. (I don’t know what this means, so maybe I need to get a liberal to translate for me since I’m nothing but an unenlightened oaf.)

Ms. LePage indicates that our first response to ISIS should be to understand the above psychological tactic, so that we don’t allow them to win. She says we don’t have to be guilt-tripped into fighting these barbaric groups. Our values are strong enough to refuse to sink to their level. Instead, we should turn toward reinforcing national unity against their aggression. LePage believes that enlightenment and democratic progress are strong enough to stand up to such behavior, which is sending us back to pre-historic times.

Ms. LePage believes that the climate change issue will determine, in the long term, the survival of mankind, and in the short term, the demographic balance. She also believes that there are definitely several undeniable links between these barbaric and fascist acts by radical Islamists and the climate.

Because ISIS lives off of the smuggling and trafficking all kinds of goods, but in particular, on aid coming from oil-rich countries and oil smuggling, reducing the locations of oil and hydrocarbons, developing energy autonomy of each country through renewable energy, and fighting the omnipotence of oil producers will all help to reduce the power of ISIS. LePage believes that the consequences of climate change are forming the conditions of terrorism; mass migration tied to poor weather has destabilized a number of areas around the world, inevitable transforming them into zones of conflict. She further believes that postponing the COP21 conference would not be a wise thing to do because that would give ISIS the impression that they had won.

This woman also goes on to say that the behavior of countries in the North is sometimes questionable, and that democracy may not have been fully achieved. But that does not mean that humanism and democracy are not the best systems that humanity could have invented to protect and defend us. LePage ends the article indicating that the COP 21 conference will surely take place and she hopes that it will be a great success, as well as a huge slap in the face for the ISIS butchers.

Some liberals are blaming Fox News and conservative Americans for the Paris attacks. What else is new? Ms. LePage of the French Huffington Post is saying climate change is responsible for the terrorist attacks and the sooner we get off of fossil fuels, ISIS will be weakened.

Has anybody forgot the State Department Spokesperson (Marie Harf or Jen Psaki) who said that we needed to provide the terrorists with jobs, so they will quit doing bad things?

Let’s get off of fossil fuels and make the transition to green energy as soon as possible. And while we’re doing that, let’s get the terrorists jobs. The COP 21 conference needs to be re-scheduled as soon as possible. Originally, Al Gore was supposed to speak from atop of the Eiffel Tower, but that has been cancelled. And it’s too bad because that would have been so moving.

In closing, “Hip, Hip, Hooray,” we have a solution to weakening and eventually destroying ISIS: Attack climate change with vigor, transition to fossil fuels, and get the terrorists jobs.

Facebooktwitter

LAME DUCK – PART ONE

The American people handed the current president of the United States a stunning defeat in the 2014 mid-term elections. The Republicans maintained leadership of the House of Representatives and gained a majority in the Senate. However, they didn’t obtain a super majority of 60. However, the current president said he had a pen and he had a phone and he intended to use them. And he has by signing executive orders and the only way this can be stopped is through the courts. He justifies his actions by stating that he’s doing what is good for the country. If a Republican did the same think, claiming his or her actions were good for the country, the mainstream media would be exploding. The following is a summary of three things that the current president has done, according to motherjones.com, none are good.

Normalized Relations with Cuba:
According to newsmax.com, the Obama administration is easing travel and some economic restrictions against Cuba after coming out in support of normalizing relations with the Communist regime. This is raising fears among many of a total lifting of the trade embargo against the island nation.

Would lifting the embargo benefit the Cuban people of just benefit the Castro regime? Most of the Cuban economy is government owned and all foreign trade is channeled through Cuban government agencies. Companies pay wages in hard currency, including dollars and euros, but the Cuban government pays its workers in Cuban pesos and pockets about 90% of the wages.

Decades of trade between Cuba and the market economies of Europe, Canada, and Latin America have not produced the political and economic benefits to the people of Cuba. This has lined the pockets of the Castro regime and the Cuban people have not been beneficiaries.

Obama claimed the regime would release all political prisoners, but it has not. So, we’ve entered into an agreement with a deadbeat nation that refuses to honor its commitments. It has defaulted on its estimated $37 billion debt to the Paris Club of Nations. Russia has been forced to write off Cuba’s $32 million debt, and Mexico wrote off $340 million of Cuba’s debt.
Americans want free trade with free people and not relations that strengthen an authoritarian regime’s oppression of its people.

Cuba has not met the conditions agreed upon prior to lifting the embargo. Cuba was supposed to legalize all political activity, release political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections, grand freedom of the press, and allow labor unions. Cuba has not met these conditions and, of course, that sends a message to the world that the Unites States is weak.

Also, Cuba remains on the U.S. “State Sponsors of Terrorism” list. The country has provided sanctuary for terrorists from other nations and has harbored American fugitives. Black Panther activist and convicted murderer Jo Anne Chesimard is among the 90 or more criminals who fled America and received political asylum in Cuba.

The American people are opposed to lifting the embargo. A poll last year found that a slight majority still want the sanctions to remain in place. More importantly, an even larger majority of Cuban-Americans, who know the situation best, favor keeping the embargo in place.

Of course, the current president’s worshippers, including the mainstream media, think this is a great thing, but anything this president does they are going to think is great.

Climate Deal with China:
According to nationalreview.com, when the United States and China announced a surprise carbon-emissions deal, the leftists were ecstatic. Al Gore declared it groundbreaking progress form the world’s largest polluter and John Kerry patted himself on the back. However, when the deal was stuck with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the Chinese were laughing at us. Nothing was going to stop China from moving full speed ahead with its economic development plans that rely heavily on cheap and abundant fossil fuels.

In December, 2014, the South China Morning Post announced that Chinese negotiators rejected the scrutiny to limit carbon emissions. In other words, the Chinese refuse to agree to measurable and enforceable carbon reduction targets. According to dailycaller.com, the U.S. China climate deal unraveled during the U.N. climate talks. Chinese delegates demanded more climate aid be sent from rich countries to poor countries, and refused to agree to certain U.S. backed provisions in a climate treaty draft.

So liberal rag, motherjones.com, in an August 24, 2015 article, cites this as an Obama lame duck accomplishment. Not true!
Issued New EPA Ozone Rules:
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014, the current president check off another major items on environmentalists’ wish list by targeting smog, but angered big business and giving Republicans fresh ammunition heading into the final two years of Obama’s presidency. According to washingtontimes.com, the EPA has released new tentative rules on ozone, meant to drastically cut the amount of smog produced by power plants and factories. The proposal would lower the threshold for ozone from 75 ppb to 70 ppb and are shooting for 65 ppb.

With the full backing of environmental activists, administration officials have become brazen toward their critics. White House counselor, John Podesta has gone so far as to brag that the GOP can’t stop more executive actions and climate regulations.

Critics say it’s obvious the regulations will create a serious burden. EPA data, cited by groups such as the Business Roundtable, show that 59 percent of the U.S. population lives in an area that did not meet the 65 ppb threshold.

The National Association of Manufacturers called the rules “the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the American public. In a July study, the organization calculated that the rule would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by 3.4 trillion from 2017 to 40 and cut about 2.9 million jobs per year on average through 2040.
This doesn’t sound too good to me, but of course, the liberals love it.

Facebooktwitter