I’ve always hated these commercials and knew they were a bunch of bunk. But now that we know what they are really about, it ticks me off even more. It’s a fraudulent way to get funds in order to stop drilling of American oil!!! They tell you the money is for the polar bears, but that’s not where the money is going! The ads should be taken off the air for false advertising and fraud!!
The World Wildlife Fund’s Polar Bear Lies
by Tom DeWeese
No doubt you’ve seen the ads: The music is dramatic. The scene is tragic. The message emotional. Polar Bears, holding on for dear life to bits of ice, their artic habitat destroyed by Global Warming. And the narration tells you of the tragic fate of the bears, all because of man and his selfish destruction of the earth. Of course, the ad ends with a plea for funds to help the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) protect the bears and stop Global Warming. Cute, fuzzy animals always do the trick.
Trouble is, it’s all a lie. Not one word of the ad is true. Polar Bears are not endangered. There is no indication of any reduction of their populations. In fact, they are actually being hunted by locals who have to live with them in an effort to keep their populations down. Of 13 Polar Bear populations, 11 are thriving and growing.
The real agenda behind WWF’s Polar Bear campaign is to stop drilling of American oil and to shackle the United States with the UN’s Kyoto Climate Change Treaty. The policy is called Sustainable Development.
Using the Polar Bear, which WWF and the Sierra Club managed to get listed on the Endangered Species (ESA) list last year, the greens can grab control of the U.S. economy, controlling energy production.
Last year, in a Congressional hearing on the listing of the Polar Bears, Congressman Don Young of Alaska said testimony by Bush Administration officials “clearly indicated the overriding goal was to use the ESA as a tool to stop energy production in any and all states.” Under questioning, former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director Dale Hall confirmed that if a coal-fired power plant in Arizona were seeking a federal permit, with the Polar Bear listed as protected by the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service would have to consult on the permit. In other words, a power plant located thousands of miles away from Polar Bear habitat would be considered a danger – because of global warming. How could any industry be possible? And that’s just the way WWF wants it.
The truth is now rapidly coming out. There is no man-made global warming – it’s a lie. There is no threat to Polar Bears – it’s a lie. Drilling American oil is not a danger to the environment – it’s a lie. And yet, WWF continues to spread the lies and fan the fear.
It is time we fight back against these zealots who put anything else on earth ahead of man. Taking donations based on lies is fraud and WWF should be called on it. We should call on the federal government to take away WWF’s non-profit status. We should complain to any television network that runs their lies. We should demand that such false advertising be pulled from the airways.
The World Wildlife Fund is dangerous to our way of life – to our very civilization. We should no longer just treat them like some nice folks with a different point of view. Political debate is one thing, outright fraud is criminal.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Another hero – professor Mark Campbell of the US Naval Academy – tells it like it is!! Wouldn’t it be nice if liberals actually listened and weighed the facts and the evidence. Unfortunately they are too busy jumping on the latest bandwagon to worry about facts.
Calling out warmist bullies
It should come as no surprise to find courage coming from the United States Naval Academy. But when the subject is global warming, it is a pleasant confirmation of a more general point. Professor Mark Campbell of the USNA is yet another hero from Annapolis. His response to name calling from a Baltimore Sun editorialist deserves an audience beyond Maryland.
The good professor wrote the following letter, published yesterday in the Sun:
According to the editorial “A New Year’s resolution” (Jan. 2), tens of thousands of scientists like me are “flat-earth types.”
I guess my doctorate in chemical physics from Johns Hopkins doesn’t give me nearly the qualifications to analyze the science associated with the global climate as an editor with an agenda.
If we are going to stoop to name-calling, an appropriate name for people with the view The Baltimore Sun endorses could be “Chicken Littles.” But instead of claiming that the sky is falling, they claim the sky is burning.
The editorial claims that there is a consensus among scientists that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global climate change; however, consensus in science is an oxymoron. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true.
And I don’t even grant that there is a consensus among scientists; it’s just that the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical. To many of us, there is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide produced by humans has any influence on the Earth’s climate.
Arguing that our country should decrease its use of fossil fuels is a laudable goal, but the reason to do so should be to reduce our reliance on energy from foreign sources, not to reduce the danger from some imaginary boogeyman.
The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.
Mark Campbell Annapolis
The writer is a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy.
The liberal media have taken upon themselves the role of enforcers of Al Gore’s global warming con game, resorting to insults to dismiss legitimate questioning of what is, after all, only a theory, one that has not been proven. It is very important to stand up and confront these bullies, challenging them, to defend their insults. The one thing that warmists fear most is a serious scientific debate. That’s why they always fall back on the phony claim of “consensus” – a claim that makes no sense, as science is not decided by consensus, and as more and more scientists stand up and puncture the claim.
Professor Campbell strikes me as a man worthy of his institution. And that is saying a lot.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
I am surrounded by, and, unfortunately, governed by, IDIOTS!!!!!!! Who let all these loonies out of the loony bins? I am so sick of common sense being ignored and nutjobs having the final say. When will we put a stop to this crap?
Environmentalists Disregard Public Safety
by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Snow and ice cause an increase in car crashes. Car tires have little or no traction on these surfaces. We learn these basic facts in Driver’s Ed 101. However, officials in Seattle, Wash. disregard these physics laws concerning automobiles on snow and ice. They have implemented policies which aggravate dangerous road conditions and are leading to an increase in accidents and injuries.
They claim to act out of their concern for the environment. Hmmm. On the one hand, you have human death, bodily injury and suffering, money lost due to vehicular damage and time lost from work and school — versus the environment. What seems like a no-brainer to most Americans, and defies common sense, is the city’s refusal to use salt and other proven means of clearing streets of dangerous snow and ice. “If we were using salt, you’d see patches of bare road because salt is very effective,” said Alex Wiggins of the Seattle Department of Transportation. “We decided not to utilize salt because it’s not a healthy addition to Puget Sound.”
These environmentalist fanatics prefer people lose life and limb rather than damage a blade of grass or an insect. But like much government decision-making they are actually harming the environment more by choosing sand over salt on roads.
“Sand’s the problem, as much as people don’t want to recognize it,” said aquatic ecologist, Prof. Eric Benbow of the University of Dayton (Ohio). “In general, what my colleagues have found, and I have found, is that sand actually has a greater impact, at least on stream systems.” Scientists and other specialists in the area of road salting concur that sand clogs drainage systems and the spaces in gravel where insects live, thus making it difficult for them to adhere to rocks. As a key part of the food chain, insects are an indicator of stream health. Both salmon and insect habitats can be severely damaged by sand.
Worries about salt damaging grass and water quality are not as bad as some feared in the ’90s. Salt on roads is diluted by melting snow and extremely high amounts would have to be used for damage to occur. Seattle’s “plowed streets” are really sprinkled with sand and “snow-packed,” leaving snow and ice on major arterials thus requiring all-wheel, four-wheel or chains on vehicles. Many hilly, icy roads were closed in downtown Seattle for days from several snowstorms that hit the area in December. Thousands of folks were housebound, including the elderly, due to the dangerous streets. The chief of staff for the Seattle Department of Transportation, Alex Wiggins, points out the obvious in the difference between the city he works for and other places where they know how to deal with winter weather, “It doesn’t look like anything you’d find in Chicago or New York.”
Seattle uses plow equipment with rubber-edged blades to decrease the damage to manhole covers and roads but it doesn’t scrape off ice. But plowing has its problems, too. Naturally, snow plows use more fuel the more they are used. They generate carbon dioxide.
Plowing and spreading sand or other abrasive materials intended to increase friction between vehicles and snow or ice has been used for decades for winter road maintenance in the United States despite studies which show it worthless. As far back as the 1950s, studies in Germany revealed after only 10 to 12 vehicle passes, sand is ineffective on snow-covered surfaces. Benefits are only temporary unless chemical additives are combined with the sand to make it adhere to the icy surface.
Winter-highway-maintenance expert Prof. Wilfrid Nixon of the University of Iowa College of Engineering says good, old-fashioned salt is the best ice-buster. And another thing for the environmentally conscious to consider is the impact accidents have on the environment. “Every crash in the winter is an environmental disaster,” Nixon said. “You have spills of engine oil, gas, coolant.It may not be hundreds of miles of road, but the effect is intensely local.”
Mark Devries of the American Public Works Association says social, financial and politics all play a part in decisions made by departments of transportation about snow clearance, in addition to science.
Yet yearly, an average of 1.4 million car accidents in the U.S. are the result of adverse weather conditions. These accidents result in 7,000 deaths, more than 800,000 injuries, and $42 billion in economic loss. Environmentalists who place a higher value on ditch grass than public safety are being negligent. Public officials who bow to their wishes in municipalities such as Seattle may find themselves facing lawsuits from accidents caused by snow and ice that should have been removed.
Well, what’s new? Now that Obama knows he’s on the wrong side of things, he flip-flops again!! It’s really getting ridiculous what the MSM and his slobbering followers will let him by with.
Obama reverses, will support offshore drilling as part of compromise
August 1, 2008
An early dividend from today’s GOP House revolt? Nah. Obama’s simply on the wrong side of this issue politically and he knows it. And thanks to savvy Dems like Ken Salazar who think it’s a good idea to shrug off the prospect of $10 gas live with C-SPAN cameras rolling, Barry’s room to maneuver is narrowing by the day. Now that there’s momentum in the Senate for a compromise energy bill, the last partisan excuse to resist is disintegrating as we speak.
Let’s not call it a flip-flop. Rather, let’s borrow from his Iraq rhetoric and call it … a tactical readjustment.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy…
“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.
“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage – I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”
Larry Elder 3/15/2007
Dear Larry,I’m a Democrat, and I enjoy your work. And I get very frustrated by those on the left who whine and are thin on the facts.
This brings me to my reason for this letter: Global warming.
The global warming debate is unique to humanity. If those who advocate “wait and convince more scientists” are wrong, following their advice may affect hundreds of millions of people, with possibly many killed by famine and flooding. On the other hand, if the people who advocate doing something now are wrong, the worst is mostly economic. That’s a price I’m more than willing to pay to hedge my bets to protect the millions of lives at risk, as well as the ecosystems and animal species facing extinction.
Following the advice of the vast majority of the world’s atmospheric scientists sounds like a bet all humans should take. – Mr. Ph.D.
Dear Mr. Ph.D.,
Progress! At least you do not say, as does Al Gore, that the debate about global warming in the scientific community “is over.” Nor do you assert, as does CBS’s Katie Couric, that “all the experts agree.” The debate is not over, nor do all experts agree.
You suggest that if the scientists are wrong, the worst case comes down to a few lost bucks. No, the worst case results in lots of lost bucks, retarded economic growth, lost jobs and weakened worker pensions, all while making nations, especially Third World countries, less prosperous and thus less capable of adapting to whatever damage might occur as a result of global warming.
The Kyoto Accords cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and figure to increase the gap between the rich and the poor. More will starve, with countries becoming less financially capable of dealing with diseases like malaria, HIV/AIDS, etc. Funds directed toward combating global warming mean less money for immediate crises like those mentioned. This can result in greater political instability and tyranny, with more failed states receptive to the Islamofascist lie that rich nations become so “at the expense of poor ones.”
Furthermore, many scientists and economists see a small-benefit to high-cost ratio, again therefore diverting money otherwise spent on improved technologies that could wean us away from environmentally polluting energy sources, some of which come from hostile, politically unstable nations. This means less money for R&D on wind, solar, nuclear and other non-fossil fuel alternatives.
Life involves trade-offs. You underestimate the cost side while overestimating the benefit side.
“Environmentalists” like Rachel Carson, author of “Silent Spring,” helped to create the hysteria that eliminated DDT. The result? The return of malaria and needless deaths.
Kyoto already fails to meet its objectives in European countries that ratified the accords. Non-signatories like India and China, on the other hand, will soon become the biggest CO2 emission polluters. Neither nation has or will likely sign on to Kyoto. Thus any benefits – and again many scientists expect only negligible, if any, post-Kyoto benefits – will be offset by polluting nations like India and China.
Why does government need to mandate our way “out of this”? The Toyota Prius caught the public’s fancy less because of government inducements and government R&D, and more because the company provided a product that consumers wanted. Understand this: the more prosperous a nation, the more its citizens can afford to demand “clean” means of production. Poor nations face bigger concerns - like feeding their population, and providing housing and other basic services. Right now, neither India nor China can afford the luxury of “green” policies before things like food, housing and clothing.
The environment, like people, adapts. Entrepreneurs, right now, pour billions into “alternative” technologies as the costs of fossil fuels – both financial and political – go up, while the price of “clean” fuels go down. These things take time.
Even some United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists say it’s too late to reverse global warming. If so, oh well. Still others expect the “damage” to materialize centuries down the road, giving us plenty of time to change or adapt.
Why does speculating about things like global warming replace direct and immediate threats? Iran, for example, seeks a bomb. If they use it – and they threaten to – imagine the environmental damage to the planet, to say nothing about the genocide-like loss of human life. But where is the urgency?
Soon baby boomers will join the ranks of those on Social Security and Medicare, thus requiring younger workers to substantially increase their payroll taxes in order to allow boomers the same benefits enjoyed by their parents and grandparents. Where’s the urgency?
Policy-makers face immediate, predictable and foreseeable – and especially in the case of Iran – serious around-the-corner issues. Yet we divert time, money and energy fretting about hypothetical “calamities” of global warming rather than dealing with real world/real time threats.
You’ve gambled on global warming. I just hope we’re alive to place a bet.
- LarryRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Well, well, well…while he’s screaming at us to change our ways, Gore is living it up at his house. But that shouldn’t be a surprise. He knows he’s feeding us all a lot of garbage about global warming so that he can make millions off of it. He’s a lying HYPOCRITE!!
Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations
Tennessee Center For Policy Research
June 17, 2008
NASHVILLE – In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month -1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Thanks a lot, Dems!! We really appreciate the $5 a gallon gas prices!
Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices
By William Tate
June 16, 2008
This started out as an attempt to create a light and humorous, Letterman-esque Top 10 list. But the items on the list, and the drain Americans are seeing in their pocketbooks because of Democrats’ actions (sometimes inaction) are just too tragic for that.
10) ANWR – If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress’s 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day–5% of the nation’s consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that “one million barrels per day,” would cause the price of gasoline to fall “50 cents a gallon almost immediately,” according to a recent George Will column.
9) Coastal Drilling (i.e., not in my backyard) – Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: “Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so.”
A financial incentive? With the Chinese now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast, wouldn’t that have been a good thing?
8) Insistence on alternative fuels - One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that “calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards.” By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump.
7) Nuclear power – Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world’s largest exporter of electric power. They have plans in place to build more reactors, including an experimental fusion reactor.
The last nuclear reactor built in the United States, according to the US Dept of Energy, was the “River Bend” plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977.
Need I say more?
6) Coal -“The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world,” writes Dr. Arthur Robinson in an article on humanevents.com. The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world’s known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and–at current prices–a liquified fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Dems and their enviro friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants.
5) Refinery capacity - “High oil prices are still being propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity and there is little sign of the bottleneck easing until 2010,” according to Peak Oil News. And, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years, the Dems’ environmentalist constituency vows to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.
4) Reduced competition – With consolidation in the oil industry, has come reduced competition. Remember, most of the major oil company mergers — Shell-Texaco, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-ARCO, and Chevron-Texaco — happened on Clinton’s watch. The number of oil refiners dropped from 28 to 19 companies during Clinton’s two terms.
3) The Global Warming Myth – At a Group of 8 meeting this week, host and Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari “described the issues of climate change and energy as two sides of the same coin and proposed united solutions … to address both issues simultaneously”. As a result of Global Warming hysteria, the Al Gore-negotiated Kyoto Protocol created a worldwide market in carbon-emissions trading. Both 2005 –the year that trading was initiated–and this year –when the trading expanded dramatically — saw substantial and unexpected price spikes in the cost of oil, leading us to reason Number…
2) Speculation - “Given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices … it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation,” writes F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. According to a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, US energy futures historically “were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States… The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from (federal) oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.” The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts in office.
1) Defeat of President Bush’s 2001 energy package – According to the BBC, “Key points of Bush(‘s 2001) plan were to:
-Promote new oil and gas drilling
-Build new nuclear plants
-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels
A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:
“President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of ‘energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.
Mr. Bush’s plea for a new dialogue came as his administration published the report of an energy task force containing scores of specific proposals… for finding new sources of power and encouraging a range of new energy technologies.”
[The Bush plan] “mentions about a dozen areas including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline.”
The article went on to quote some rather prescient words from the President, “this great country could face a darker future, a future that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California” if his plan was not adopted in 2001.
The Times account continued:
“Mr. Bush talked not only of blackouts but of blackmail, raising the specter of a future in which the United States is increasingly vulnerable to foreign oil suppliers…Mr. Bush was praised by many groups for laying out a long-term energy policy. His report contained 105 initiatives…”
Just as President Bush’s predictions have been born out, the article quoted from that most sage of Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter:
“World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful,” he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said “exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality.”
But, as a later Times article notes, “the president’s ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan.”
In other words, Democrats refused the President’s plea to “break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.”
Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump … or the voter’s booth.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Excellent article that addresses some of the lies the liberals are putting out there!
Tackling Five Modern Myths Created by Liberals
By John Hawkins
In recent years, liberals have mastered the art of lying. A lefty blog writes a story, then two dozen other blogs pick-up. Next thing you know, the libs in the mainstream media are echoing the charges that started in the blogosphere without mentioning that they’re false.
At that point, we’re in a Catch-22 because liberals very seldom challenge lies about Republicans, no matter how obvious they may be, and when conservatives point out inaccuracies, it’s treated as immaterial because we “must” be biased. Since the mainstream media works this way and is so heavily slanted to the left, it makes it very difficult for conservatives to get their side of the story out.
Then, a few months later, after the lies have been repeated ad nauseum, even conservatives who are uninformed may start to mistake the untrue charges for the truth. That’s why these modern liberal myths, like the ones you are about to read, need to be countered with the truth.
1. George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: This is actually one of the most easily disproved myths because after looking at the same intelligence George Bush was given, many prominent Democrats said almost the exact things Bush did about Iraq’s WMDs.
For example, here’s Hillary Clinton,
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
Now here’s John Edwards,
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
They weren’t tricked by the Bush Administration and they weren’t part of some cover-up designed to lie us into war. To the contrary, they looked at our intelligence reports and came to the same conclusions the Bush Administration did. That’s why both of them voted for the war. If the Democrats were honest, they’d be willing to admit that Bush told the truth.
2. Al Gore would have won the election in 2000 if all the votes had been counted: The problem with this assertion is that all the votes were counted after the fact — by mainstream media organizations that are hostile to the Bush Administration. What was their conclusion? That George Bush would have won had the unconstitutional full recount been allowed to go forward.
The Miami Herald did a recount and here’s the headline and the first paragraph from their article describing the results,
“REVIEW SHOWS BALLOTS SAY BUSH
Republican George W. Bush’s victory in Florida, which gave him the White House, almost certainly would have endured even if a recount stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been allowed to go forward.”
There was also a 2nd recount done by eight media groups. Here’s what the New York Times, one of the participants, had to say about it. Again, I am quoting the headline and the first paragraph,
“Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward”
So, the reality is that even if the unconstitutional recount of the Florida ballots had gone forward, Bush still would have won the election.
3. George Bush’s “16 Words” in the 2003 State of the Union were a lie: This was the statement which led to the Valerie Plame scandal. It was as follows:
“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Later the White House said this assertion was “incorrect” and George Tenet added that those words shouldn’t have been in the speech. From there, that egomaniacal jackass, Joseph Wilson, publicly made himself into the main character of a story he was only tangentially involved in and things snowballed from there.
However, the British Government did believe Saddam Hussein had “sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” and moreover, a “separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said…that the US also had similar information from ‘a number of intelligence reports.'” In addition, the British Butler report concluded that Iraq did try to buy uranium in Nigeria in 1999 and that George Bush’s 16 words were “well-founded.”
After reading that, you can only conclude that the Bush Administration’s mistake was not in lying, but in prematurely declaring that the “16 words” weren’t correct.
4. Bush made 9/11 happen on purpose or let it happen on purpose: This loony conspiracy theory has been floating around for years despite the fact that,
“The 9/11 attacks, or at least parts of those attacks, have been investigated by the 9/11 commission, the CIA, FBI, FAA, FEMA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Popular Mechanics, and countless mainstream newspapers — among other sources.”
Start considering the size of the conspiracy that we’re talking about here, folks. Not only are we talking about the people who planned and executed the attacks, we’re talking about the firemen, policemen, and medical workers who helped out in the aftermath. At least some of them must have been able to figure out what was going on. Then we’re talking about all the people who investigated the attacks, who are from every background, religious sect, walk-of-life, and political party you can imagine. Yet, all of these people, tens of thousands of them, are supposed to be participating in a massive cover-up? Meanwhile, the Bush Administration can’t even seem to keep the details of highly classified intelligence programs from being publicized in the New York Times. It’s just not possible that a conspiracy of that magnitude could exist, which is why no rational and intelligent person buys into these wacky 9/11 conspiracy theories.
5. There is a consensus on man-made global warming: Because the global warming alarmists can’t give a good answer to many of the most basic questions that people have, they’ve simply been claiming that almost every scientist believes they’re right. The idea here is that people will think, “They may not be able to make a case for what they believe, but if all those scientists agree with them, they must be spot-on!”
However, while there is a consensus that the earth warmed a small amount over the last century, there is no consensus on whether mankind is responsible, whether the warming will continue, and whether the consequences will be serious if it does. In fact, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating the following:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Maybe you agree with that or maybe you don’t, but what should be beyond dispute at this point is that there is certainly no scientific consensus on global warming.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
I am sick to death of being bullied by all the environmental whackos! We have them to thank for the gas prices and for our dependence on other countries for our oil. We need to say to them, “Shut yer pie-hole! We’re gonna drill for American oil!” They don’t have a clue what they’re talking about yet everyone caves to their garbage. When will common sense return????
Drill for American oil NOW!
Posted: June 10, 2008
The average price of regular gas went up to $4 a gallon for the first time over the weekend.
How much higher will the price have to go before Americans demand prohibitions and restrictions on domestic oil drilling be lifted?
How high? I know everyone has their price. What is yours? Is it $5 a gallon? Is it $10?
It’s time to start thinking about it, because oil and gas prices are not going down any time soon. None of our energy policies do anything but encourage this trend.
Is it possible to bring down energy prices in the U.S.? You bet it is. In fact, it would be relatively easy. The only questions are how fast they would come down and how much.
How would we do it?
• We have to start drilling for oil again in the U.S. – onshore, offshore, in Alaska, in the Gulf of Mexico. It’s time to realize the environmentalist zeal that has prohibited and restricted oil drilling in the U.S. is actually counterproductive. No one on Earth is more conscious of conservation and environmental protection than American oil companies. We failed to follow this course in the 1990s and we’re paying the price for it now. Just how bad do we want to be hurting 10 years from now?
• While drilling for U.S. oil, we also need to make sure we can refine it and bring it to market quickly and efficiently. That means building more American refineries. Do you know we haven’t built on in the U.S. in 32 years? With a growing population and increasing energy demands, we can’t wait another 32 years for more capacity.
• We shouldn’t rely on oil alone to meet our energy needs. There’s a clean alternative that those who believe in the hocus pocus of global warming, above all others, should be embracing. That’s nuclear power. While I don’t believe carbon dioxide is nearly as big a threat to the planet as Al Gore is, haven’t the climate-change zealots noticed that nuclear power doesn’t create any carbon emissions? And did you know we haven’t built a single nuclear plant in the U.S. in 12 years, while shutting down several for no good reason other than superstition?
I say it’s time to drill – and drill big.
It’s more than gas prices at stake. The price of just about everything is rising as a result of skyrocketing oil prices controlled not by Americans but by foreigners – even foreigners hostile to American interests.
As simply a matter of national security, it doesn’t make any sense not to drill. But now that we’re all feeling the pinch in our pocketbooks, I believe the time is right for a national uprising.
Are you with me?
Will you join the crusade?
All you have to do is make noise. Raise your voice. Don’t let the out-of-touch politicians in their chauffeur-driven limousines get away with business as usual. The future of America is at stake. What kind of a country do you think your children and grandchildren will inherit if America does not protect its sovereignty and its freedom with some common-sense self-interest?
“Drill for American oil NOW!”
« Previous Entries Next Entries »