You are here: Home / Archives for Al Gore

Weathering The Politicians

May 28, 2013 by 2 Comments

Man Made Global Warming Denier SC Weathering the Politicians

Yesterday, I read an interesting article in Newsweek about the connection between tornadoes and climate change.

Newsweek’s story explained how top climate scientists were concerned about several ominous and fundamental changes occurring in Earth’s weather patterns.

Evidence that Earth’s climate was changing in the wrong direction, the article said, included a shorter growing season in England, higher average temperatures at the equator, and an increase in tornadoes like the monster than killed at least 24 people in Tornado Alley this past week.

“Last April,” wrote Newsweek, “in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states.”

Newsweek’s article went on to say scientists weren’t sure what was causing the global climate to change and could not predict how it would affect specific local weather conditions.

But the news magazine said top weather scientists were certain of one thing: They were “almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural output for the rest of the century” and result in “a major climatic change that would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale.”

Oh, I forgot to mention a few important facts.

The date on that Newsweek article was April 28, 1975. The headline was “The Cooling World.” And the climate change scientists were almost unanimously worried about was a global cooling trend.

Global cooling, the Big Climate Scare of the 1970s, wasn’t blamed on humans; and weather disasters like Hurricane Sandy and this past week’s tragedy in Oklahoma were not politicized by climate illiterates like Babs “The Weather Girl” Boxer and her fellow U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse.

Both Boxer and Whitehouse jumped on the Oklahoma City tornado tragedy this week to exploit it for political gain.

While they were still pulling survivors out of the wreckage, Whitehouse gave an idiotic speech linking “cyclones” and other extreme weather events to climate change.

Then he beat up Republicans for not believing the myth he and his political soul-bothers believe — that climate change is catastrophic, man-made, and only fixable by great climatologists like Al Gore and wise Washington politicians.

Whitehouse later apologized, saying he wrote the speech before he knew about the tornadoes striking Oklahoma. But his climatic ignorance and his crass, opportunistic politics were exposed.

Meanwhile, Sen. Boxer had no excuse. She took a break from her gun control crusade to spend time on her other crusade — climate control.

Last Monday, she expressed her condolences to the tornado victims, then twisted another natural tragedy into a political issue. She blathered that the tornado was “proof” of climate change.

Sorry, Ma’am, but tornados have been around for a long time. That’s why we call it Tornado Alley, not “Global Warming Alley.” In Florida and the Carolinas, we have Hurricane Alley. I live in Earthquake Alley.

Next time a natural disaster strikes, I have some advice for all the climate-control freaks in Washington.

Please shut up. Nothing you say or do will change anything. Oklahoma is not going to get safer if Earth gets cooler.

And Boxer, Whitehouse, and their ilk are not going to make tornadoes disappear like Newsweek did.

Believe it not, senators, climate is not something that Washington can control.

It’s ultimately affected — and controlled — by Almighty Nature, not humans and their carbon burning. And certainly not by agenda-driven politicians.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Gore Compares Global Warming Skeptics To “An Alcoholic Father”

March 13, 2013 by 7 Comments

Al Gore SC Gore compares global warming skeptics to An alcoholic father

Former vice president and perpetual blowhard Al Gore was permitted to spew his increasingly absurd ecological advice during a recent NPR interview.

He was primarily doing what he does best, engaging in braggadocio about what he considers a major accomplishment on his part. In the case of this interview, it happened to be his latest book, which I will not give any undue promotion in mentioning by name.

Overall, Gore touched on the talking points he and his ilk repeat ad nauseam, such as blaming Republicans for the financial crisis and bad intelligence concerning the Sept. 11 attacks.

Returning to the subject at hand, though, he actually contended the mainstream media is scared to report the truth (as he sees it) about global warming.

The “forces of denial, which are lavishly funded by the large carbon polluters and some ideological groups, have intimidated many in the news media into remaining silent and not speaking out,” he claimed.

If this nearly constant drumbeat of global warming rhetoric is evidence of an intimidated media, I’d seriously hate to see them unfettered by such restraint.

Doubling down on his idiocy, Gore shared his obtuse comparison of global warming critics to “an alcoholic father who flies into a rage if alcohol is mentioned,” leading the “rest of the family … to keep the peace by never discussing the elephant in the middle of the room.”

Other “highlights” of the interview included Gore gushing over singer Jason Mraz (“I was with him over the weekend …. I think he’s the real thing.”) and declaring that the U.S. Constitution has “been hacked by big money.”

In explaining his opinion, the inventor of the Internet explained to the uneducated masses that “hack” is “a computer term.” Thanks for breaking it down for us, Al.

It’s telling that, almost coinciding with Gore’s remarks, Navy Admiral Samuel Locklear III declared that global warming is the “most likely” threat “that will cripple the security environment” despite the fact he is in charge of monitoring hotbeds of violence such as North Korea and China.

Liberals permit other liberals to make the most outlandish, misleading, and flat-out untrue statements imaginable as long as it furthers their agenda. Should conservatives dare open their mouths to say anything, though, no matter how reasoned and informed, we are declared either evil, stupid, or, more commonly, an amalgam of both.
Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Photo credit: roberthuffstutter (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Get Rid Of Cows On Public Land, Start A Food Riot

March 8, 2013 by 19 Comments

Sacred Cow Taxes US Economy SC Get Rid Of Cows On Public Land, Start A Food Riot

The yuppies who think they know something about “public” lands are at it again.

They want to raise the grazing fees on the 87% of the land in Nevada that happens to be owned by the Federal Government.

Astonishingly, this time, the BLM is on the side of the people; and by that, I mean us. You and me.

Here’s a question for you.

If it costs a rancher more to graze cattle on “our” land, what do you think is going to happen to the price of beef? Do you think it might go up?

Yet Katie Fite, who is the “biodiversity director” (whatever the hell that is) of the Western Watersheds Project (whatever the hell that is) says that we ought to raise that fee because it is unrealistically low.

Let’s see.

The Government, which shouldn’t own the land in the first place, should charge more to use the land so we can produce food so our cost of food should go up.

Why, that’s the same thing as saying that we should tax oil at a higher level so . . . never mind.

Fortunately, even the Obama Administration understands that actually raising the cost of food could trigger a whole lot of unpleasant consequences up to and including food riots that the President doesn’t want to deal with while all of his other chickens are coming home to roost.

Who are these people?

Well, like most “conservationists” or “environmentalists”, they seem to believe that man simply isn’t part of the ecology.  That we shouldn’t be able to eat, have modern conveniences, and motorized transportation because while we may be God’s most advanced creature, our opposing thumbs don’t give us the privilege of using the land on which we live.

In short, these people are luddites. (If you are under 40 and went to a public school, google it.)

Meanwhile, they have forgotten something.  That land doesn’t belong to them.  They’re not the stewards of our future.  Their concept of ranching being “damaging” to the land is ludicrous.

They are as dumb as the global warming people.

Think about it.  If global warming is such a terrible thing, then Al Gore and his ilk must long for a return to having a glacier at the corner of Tropicana and the Strip. (Although I might point out with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek that it would be very difficult to have a car to car shootout on a glacier.)  They could rename the MGM Grand the Ice Palace.

By the same logic, the Western Watersheds Project would also like a return of the 30-foot meat-eating Allosaurus to our territory.  It became extinct about 65-million years ago, but we’re guessing that’s something the Western Watersheds Project cannot blame on today’s ranchers.

I’ve read much of the mumbo jumbo on their web site, and I have yet to figure out what these people are actually for; but it is easy to figure out what they are against.  They are against everything that feeds us efficiently.

Again, fortunately, even the Obama Administration—despite the base tendencies of its leadership—seems to understand that taking an action that will clearly raise food prices is a non-starter.  But not raising the grazing fee has not stopped the Federal Government from curtailing grazing allotments because it doesn’t seem to matter who is in office; these folks have infiltrated both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and the attitude of the Western Watersheds Project is well represented in the bureaucracy.

If our Western Congressional delegation really wants to do the nation a service, when it is budget time, the members of the House (where all spending bills start) need to actually pay attention to what they are funding in Interior and Agriculture.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

House Conservative Leader Gives Al Jazeera Deal A Pass

February 7, 2013 by 1 Comment

521px Steve Scalise House Conservative Leader Gives Al Jazeera Deal a Pass

Rep. Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana who is the new chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), believes Al Jazeera has a First Amendment right to expand its broadcasts in the United States and that a congressional investigation of Al Gore’s deal with the channel is not warranted.

Scalise, a self-described “staunch conservative,” is the new chairman of the RSC, which is the “caucus of House conservatives.” His action makes it increasingly unlikely that the House will exercise any oversight of Al Gore’s controversial sale of his Current TV channel to the mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The buyer is the Middle Eastern regime of Qatar, which owns Al Jazeera. The Qatar regime advertises itself as “America’s Strongest Partner in the Gulf” but has supported terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Osama bin Laden aide and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is currently in U.S. custody in Guantanamo Bay for acts of terrorism, lived and worked in Qatar but was allowed to leave for Pakistan as U.S. authorities were trying to apprehend him, according to the report of the 9/11 commission.

In Pakistan, Mohammed planned 9/11 and decapitated Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped while investigating the al-Qaeda networks in the Middle East.

Sarah E. Makin, Director of Conservative Coalitions and State Outreach at the House Republican Study Committee, told this journalist on Tuesday afternoon that she received an explanation of Scalise’s position on the Al Jazeera deal after consulting with aides to the congressman.

Conservatives had been asking Scalise to support an investigation on the grounds that a foreign-funded channel based in the Middle East, with a reputation for airing terrorist propaganda, should be examined for its ties to terrorist groups.

Foreigners are entitled to First Amendment protections in the United States, except when they run afoul of existing laws and engage in criminal or terrorist activities.

By offering the First Amendment excuse in favor of the deal, Scalise is ignoring the evidence that Al Jazeera is not a legitimate news operation but rather a conduit for propaganda from terrorist groups, with whom it has intimate and ongoing relations.

In the United States, it is against the law to provide material support to terrorists, with “material support” defined as including expert advice or assistance and communications equipment.

In World War II, Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally broadcast their anti-American diatribes from overseas and were apprehended by U.S. authorities after the war and sent to prison for treason. In the more shocking Al Jazeera case, the U.S. is officially still at war with global terrorism, but Al Gore is giving the channel a base of operations on American soil with access to 40-50 million homes.

Although it will be called “Al Jazeera America,” the channel will still be totally controlled and funded by the government of Qatar, which doesn’t permit freedom of the press in its own country.

Existing federal law requires that foreign propaganda broadcasts in the U.S. be labeled as such, a provision of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) that the Obama Administration has decided to ignore.

Independent television producer Jerry Kenney has filed complaints over the non-enforcement of the FARA law, as well as violations of Federal Communications Commission rules that have given Al Jazeera access to taxpayer-funded public television stations.

Despite these outstanding legal questions, Scalise, the top conservative leader in the House, doesn’t even want an investigation of the deal. “Who got to him?” is the question being asked by conservatives.

It is a known fact that Big Oil interests in the U.S.-Qatar Business Council are very powerful on Capitol Hill, and that the regime and/or Al Jazeera have used expensive public relations firms to lobby Congress and the federal government, and manipulate the press. These firms include Barbour Griffith Rogers, Fenton Communications, and Qorvis Communications.

Another law being ignored in the Al Jazeera case is CFIUS, named for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. When the Chinese bought AMC movie theaters last year, they went through CFIUS. Al Jazeera has decided, apparently with the acquiescence of the Obama Administration, that it can ignore the law.

In 2006, members of Congress from both political parties, including then-Senator Barack Obama, objected to a company based in the Arab state of Dubai operating U.S. ports. Public criticism forced the company to drop the deal.

Al Jazeera’s ties to al Qaeda are highlighted in the new film, “Zero Dark Thirty,” where the plot involves the CIA locating Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in part by examining his courier’s proximity to an Al Jazeera office, where terrorist tapes were dropped off for worldwide distribution.

After 9/11, the terrorist attacks on America that claimed almost 3,000 American lives, Al Jazeera correspondent Tayseer Alouni conducted an interview with bin Laden in which he denied being involved in terrorism. Alouni was later convicted of being a courier for bin Laden and al Qaeda.

In his book, Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-first Century, Philip Bobbitt described how, in the 2004 case of the kidnapping and murder of Margaret Hassan, a humanitarian aid worker in Iraq whose captivity was taped by an Islamist group, Al Jazeera “appears to have carefully screened and edited the tapes to protect the deteriorating image of the Iraqi insurgency.” He wrote that Al Jazeera “moved from being passive collaborators in achieving the political objectives of torture to acting as editorial advisors for the terrorists.”

More recently, Al Jazeera ran a story about the “gentle” al Qaeda terrorists in Mali who kidnapped and killed three Americans.

Another major concern about Al Jazeera’s presence in the U.S. is the danger of inciting home grown terrorism.

Dr. Judea Pearl, father of the slain journalist Daniel Pearl, has been committed to increasing understanding with the Arab/Muslim world, but he recognizes that Al Jazeera does not contribute to real dialogue. He supports an investigation of Al Gore’s deal with Al Jazeera.

His statement supporting an investigation was included in a letter to Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and reads as follows:

“A decade of watching over its programs has left me no doubt: Al Jazeera is the main propaganda machine of the Muslim Brotherhood. Posing as a benign alternative communication medium, Al Jazeera choreographs a world stage in which the West is a perennial villain, Hamas is the ultimate role model, and entire societies are dehumanized to a lower form of life, stripped of any mark of dignity or empathy. While refraining from explicit incitement to violence, Al Jazeera weaves the ideological structure and combustible angers from which Jihadi recruits eventually emerge.”

McCaul received this letter, signed by media critics, journalists, academics, and national security and Middle East experts, on January 9. He has yet to respond.

The Scalise response to calls for an investigation may shed light on McCaul’s striking failure to act against the Al Jazeera deal. It appears to some observers that Republican leaders in the House have made a conscious decision to let the deal go through without a peep of protest.

Another House member who has decided to do nothing is Rep. Paul Broun, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee preparing to run for the U.S. Senate from Georgia as a strong conservative.

Friends of Broun have asked him to take a stand against Al Jazeera but he has told them that his staff doesn’t want him to.

Critics of the deal say that if Congress won’t do its job and prevent the emergence of this homeland security threat, the American people will pressure the cable and satellite providers and the advertisers.

The cable and satellite providers of Current TV/Al Jazeera America currently include Comcast, DirecTV, Dish Network, Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse.

  • If you wish to protest his wrong-headed position in favor of a “hands off” approach to the Al Gore deal with Al Jazeera, Scalise and the House Republican Study Committee can be contacted at (202) 226-9717.

Read more articles like this one at AIM.org.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Trying To Be Accepted Doesn’t Win Elections!

February 2, 2013 by 3 Comments

GOP SC Trying to be Accepted Doesnt Win Elections!

Do the Republicans actually think that catering towards any form of amnesty, even if any of the proposed laws have parameters that sound tough on illegal immigrants towards their “path to eventual citizenship,” will bring them the eventual support they need in the future to acquire positions in the halls of Congress?  Or leadership in the White House?  Really?

There was an interesting piece on the Mark Levin show on Monday where Levin pointed out that administrations and presidential races from 1980 to 2012 have never been in favor of Republicans when it comes to amnesty.  No matter what happens, whether an immigrant breaks the law and comes across the border illegally, or if they obey the law and go through the true path to citizenship that every immigrant should, most of them will always vote for the Democratic Party.  Let’s take a moment and go through the different administrations and races and see if the Hispanic votes ever leaned in the direction of the Republicans, even when they did favor a form of amnesty.

Number one:  In 1980, President Jimmy Carter received 56% of the Hispanic vote; Ronald Reagan only received 35% of the vote.

Number Two:  In 1984, when President Reagan said he supported amnesty, the President received only 37% of the Hispanic vote – a 2% increase from his previous run – and the Democratic contender Walter Mondale had received a whopping 61%.  It’s also interesting to note that Reagan won both elections with massive landslides.

Number Three:  In 1988, Michael Dukakis received 69% of the Hispanic vote; and George H. W. Bush only received 30% of the Hispanic vote.  It is important to keep in mind that Bush was Ronald Reagan’s Vice President when Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which Reagan later admitted was his biggest mistake.  Does anyone remember who won that election?

Number Four:  In the 2000 election, Vice President Al Gore received 62% of the Hispanic vote; and George W. Bush only received 35%.  Bush had received only 5% more in Hispanic votes in the 2004 election and still won.  Any form of amnesty doesn’t work in anyone’s favor.  A child is never going to respect their parents if they are given everything they want.  When a child who had well-rounded parents who loved them unconditionally (yet instilled real discipline) grows up, they usually look back on their parents with respect and admiration.  This may not always be the case, but usually it is.  The point is that when the Jindals of the Republican Party start touting their horn about “working to be accepting in the eyes of minorities and new immigrants,” they need to be ignored because their sad and annoying words don’t win elections.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Sotomayor’s Autobiography Whitewashes Radical College Years

February 1, 2013 by 5 Comments

sotomayor SC Sotomayors autobiography whitewashes radical college years

People in general – and leftists specifically – have a tendency to view their own past achievements through rose-colored glasses, and many go as far as to completely rewrite history.

Bill Clinton’s autobiography all but ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal that triggered the downfall of a morally bankrupt president. Al Gore, in addition to his steady stream of lies concerning the environment, infamously took credit for the creation of the Internet.

In the continuous orgy of self-congratulation that is American politics, an autobiography might be the only place to find a more sickening whitewash of history than accounts from sycophants in the media.

Such is the case with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s recently released tome.

Instead of the familiar “tell-all” book, Sotomayor apparently wrote a “tell-all-she-wants-us-to-know” book leaving out key experiences during her college years.

To be clear, she wrote in great lengths about her time at Princeton University; but her association with openly racist organizations and other left-wing fringe movements are conveniently absent.

She does describe her involvement in groups such as Puerto Rican organization Accion Puertorriquena and the civil rights association the Third World Center.

What the book fails to reveal, however, are the radical policies and ideologies espoused by members of those two organizations.

As co-chair of Accion Puertorriquena, Sotomayor pushed relentlessly for racial quotas in her quest for affirmative action.

Accusing Princeton of “an attempt … to relegate an important cultural sector of the population to oblivion,” she stoked backlash from campus newspaper “The Daily Princetonian”‘s editorial staff.

“Affirmative action should not mean positive efforts to reverse a historical pattern of minority under-representation at the expense of traditional standards of excellence,” the paper published at the time. [Emphasis in original.]

Her pro-minority bias seemed to morph into an anti-white bias with her involvement in the Third World Center at Princeton.

In addition to a radical agenda put forth in the group’s founding documents, Sotomayor added her own leftist fingerprint by inviting speakers such as Manuel Maldonado-Denis, who reported that the “only solution” to the U.S. “exploiting” Puerto Rico is “through the establishment of national liberation and the establishment of socialism.”

If this was her inspiration back then, is there any wonder Barack Obama chose her to sit on the highest court in the land – possessing the power to change public policy without worrying about re-election?

Perhaps most relevant to her current position of power, Sotomayor showed partiality toward minorities as a student judge in college.

After inappropriately disparaging eight students who broke into the dorm room of two gay individuals in a letter to the Daily Princetonian, Sotomayor heard the case and demanded those involved be expelled, sources familiar with the incident report.

In the end, the eight students were given two years of probation and were stigmatized with a permanent mark on their records.

Even the victims of the break-in said at the time the punishment was too severe.

While I certainly want a Supreme Court sensitive to injustice, Sotomayor’s past seems to indicate she is receptive to only the suffering of her favorite minority groups.

 
Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Al Gore Is (Very) Rich And He Thinks You’re (very) Stupid

January 30, 2013 by 9 Comments

Al Gore SC Al Gore Is (Very) Rich And He Thinks Youre (very) Stupid

Al Gore unpacked some serious nonsense on national TV this morning during an interview (see below) while selling his new book The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change. Give Matt Lauer credit (though I’m not sure why we keep giving special credit to journalists who do their jobs; I guess I’m just thankful when it happens) for challenging the former vice president to explain the crass hypocrisy of his $100 million oil deal:

“I certainly understand that criticism,” Gore said. “I disagree with it. I think Al Jazeera has, obviously, long since established itself as a really distinguished and effective news gathering organization. And by the way, its climate coverage has been far more extensive and high-quality.”

Lauer interrupted, noting that Gore targets “fossil fuels” as part of his crusade against climate change, but reiterated that Qatar’s wealth is based on those substances.

“Isn’t there a bit of hypocrisy in that?” he asked.

“Well, I get the criticism,” Gore repeated. “I just disagree with it, because this network has established itself. It’s objective, it’s won major awards in countries around the world and its climate coverage, as I said a moment ago, has been outstanding and extensive.”

I’m confused. What is Gore disagreeing about? Does Al Gore disagree that Qatar would not have any economy if it weren’t for the oil and natural gas that happens to lie underneath it? Does he disagree that Al Jazeera is backed by money used to sell that oil and natural gas to the world? Gas and oil that he says is destroying the planet, does he not? Does he disagree with the State Department that Qatar is a “destination country for men and women” subjected to forced labor and forced prostitution as the government “does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.” Does he disagree that Qatar funds terror groups like Hamas? Does Al Gore believe that extracting $100 million in oil money from a network looking to gain footing in the US market isn’t immoral simply because he finds the network’s climate change coverage up to his standards? Or is Gore actually saying that an organization that features global warming coverage that meets his expectations has a dispensation from criticism?

Read More at Human Events . By David Harsanyi.

Photo credit: roberthuffstutter (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With: ,

Obama Goes After Whistleblowers With A Vengeance

January 28, 2013 by 34 Comments

barack obama angry picture3774 Obama Goes After Whistleblowers With a Vengeance

“You should be afraid,” says a twenty-four-year veteran officer of the U.S. State Department who is facing job termination for writing a book about what really went on in the Iraq war years. He has been stripped of his security clearance and diplomatic credentials. Blogging on TomDispach.com , Peter Van Buren is warning that President Barack Obama is “declaring himself above the law; he decides himself who lives or dies by death by drones.”  This state department veteran writing in the liberal leaning Mother Jones Journals, is revealing yet another non-reported story about the Obama Administration.

An award-winning documentary producer James Spione goes on to point to Americans that “whistleblowing in the age of Obama is very troubling because the law is being selectively applied!” Continuing in the Mother Jones article are troubling incidents of being harassed on the job, serious charges of retaliation, even threats to one’s life.

Thomas Drake, a whistleblower who felt Obama’s sting, said, “This makes a mockery of the entire classification system where political gain is now incentive for leading and whistleblowing is incentive for prosecution.”  Reporter Van Buren calls out selective leaking such as the Stuxnet Worm being dispatched to throw a monkey wrench into Iran’s nuclear fuel centrifuges allegedly being done at the President’s own directive! “Also drone attacks and kill list leaks were attributed directly to WH sources.” And who can forget the bold manipulation of facts surrounding the bin Laden raid appearing at very opportune political timing for Obama? Never mind that telling of classified and sensitive details very well could have been a major factor in the murders of nearly twenty SEALS and other American soldiers a short time later.

Now another glaring example of whistleblowers being attacked comes from the environmental green propaganda machine being unleashed to do Obama’s far Left attack on America, her citizens, and her once free land. “Eight government scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions.” 

The Townhall article questions whether or not some U.S. bureaucracies are “manipulating science to advance political agenda?” Here think global warming and carbon tax schemes which the new Obama regime tried along with Al Gore to foist on Americans soon after taking office the first time. Germany’s highly skilled propaganda czar Joseph Goebbels is quoted as stating: “Suppress the truth if it contradicts objectives of propaganda. If truth is important for the State to stop dissent, the truth is the state’s greatest enemy.” Observing what our newly re-elected President does to whistleblowers and truth tellers who rub him the wrong way will give us clues about how he will be treating each American citizen in the months and years to come.

 

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

The Tea Party Is Splintering, A Good Thing?

January 18, 2013 by 57 Comments

Alex Jones SC The Tea Party is Splintering, a Good Thing?

Ignoring the bully fringe only empowers them; when will we learn?

The Tea Party is splintering off into two parts. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media is not promoting this; they are especially fond of parading the most fringe to represent the Tea Party to the marginally informed general public. This is evidenced by Piers Morgan’s interview with Alex Jones, the conspiracy king. The vast majority of Tea Party participants will tell you they do not follow nor believe Alex Jones or his propaganda. His InfoWars site promotes UFOs, Chem trails, 911 “Truthers”, and other discredited conspiracies.

Alex Jones’s supporters are attempting to take over the Tea Party by infiltrating their social networks and groups. They are unwelcome guests who need to leave NOW! Even though a few of Alex’s far-fetched ideas are in fact true, this is no reason to buy into all of his extremism and paranoia.

The MSM has done a great job of portraying all Christians, in particular Baptists, as being represented by the Westboro Baptist Church. They will do the same to the TP if we do not draw attention to this matter and police our own. Ignoring bullies only empowers them!

News Flash: Al Gore = Alex Jones

Much the same as the radical left has taken over the Democrat Party, the plan by Alex and pals seems to be moving in and taking over the Tea Party. If anyone goes head to head with these conspiracy bullies, we are met with “GOP elitist” and “Neocon” labels. I guess Andrew Briebart would fit in both these categories according to those who know the facts before they are disseminated. Thank God for Ben Shapiro to come out and say it loud and clear!

Glenn Beck and Ben Shapiro have both distanced themselves from Alex Jones and his InfoWars site; I suggest the Tea Party make a concerted effort to do the same, before the Jones supporters take us down. Andrew Briebart was as close to a Tea Party leader as we have had; Ben Shapiro is now filling his shoes. This should be the path for the Tea Party to follow.

Fighting two fronts is tough, but the option is to be destroyed from within.

Thus the Tea Party has a two-pronged problem. 1) How to differentiate itself from the fringe, as Ben Shapiro did in his interview with Piers Morgan on CNN when he stated “ Do not lump me in with Alex Jones”. Glenn Beck took it a step further and called out Alex for what I believe he is, a “Madman.” 2) Getting the public, despite the left and the Mainstream Media’s attempt to lump us together, to see Alex Jones and his followers as not representative of the Tea Party, but rather a small, very vocal extremist group preying on the minds of the uninformed, gullible, or unstable.

The liberals are using this as their hammer against the Tea Party. As one Tea Party advocate put it, “Alex Jones is a well-disguised enemy of the Tea Party.”

This trend from the leaders of the Tea Party needs to continue: openly differentiate us from the madmen or prepare to be embarrassed, taken down by the left, and disappear. The radical left is counting on this; don’t play into their hands.

Photo credit: The Alex Jones Show (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,

The EPA’s Mercury Problem

January 8, 2013 by 6 Comments

EPA 2 SC The EPAs Mercury Problem

Ninety-six. That’s the number of 60-watt incandescent light bulbs I purchased last weekend after learning the other kind, the compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) environmentalists are so in love with, are hazardous to my health and to the environment. I would have preferred a higher wattage but discovered that the 75-watt version was outlawed January 1st.

It took about three hours to replace every CFL bulb in my house and carefully place them in a huge plastic container used to transport them to the recycling center at a local home improvement store. I said a quick prayer for safety while coasting down the road in my SUV. A HAZMAT decal would have come in handy because had I been in a collision, I had enough mercury on board to make the evening news. And because I am a Conservative, they might have labeled me a home-grown terrorist.

CFLs aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. Back in 2008, some Yale University scientists isolated CFLs’ benefits down to one: lower energy bills. The scientists questioned whether a little savings was worth the danger attached to mercury exposure and “runoff downstream.”

Besides making the environment sick, researchers recently discovered that these “environmentally friendly” light bulbs aren’t friendly to humans either. According to the UK Telegraph, CFLs “should not be left on for extended periods, particularly near someone’s head” because “they emit poisonous materials when switched on.” The report found those “carcinogenic substances” should be “kept as far away as possible from the human environment” because they may cause migraines, skin problems, and breast cancer. Great.

It really makes no sense. Somehow, it’s okay to have mercury housed in delicate glass bulbs inside every home in America; yet the EPA feels compelled to enact new regulations like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) limiting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants promising MATS would raise kids’ IQs, prevent a substantial amount of premature deaths, reduce heart attacks, and lessen childhood asthma. I’d settle for weight control and whiter teeth.

Sounds wonderful. Problem is, the EPA’s logic is about as twisted as a CFL, considering most people don’t live next to a coal-fired plant; but every home in America using CFLs is at risk of mercury exposure.

They say the pricey CFL’s are cost efficient but fail to mention that their measure for efficiency decreases if the bulbs are switched on and off. Nor do they discuss the outrageous price per bulb or the gas usage (carbon footprint) involved in transporting old bulbs. They also fail to factor in human nature; most people will simply discard old bulbs instead of spending their Saturday driving to the recycling center.

Seems to me that enacting the most expensive EPA rule revision in history, MATS, has less to do with people and more to do with coal-fired plants. Back in January 2012, the Washington Times said the rule will cost power plants up to $18 billion a year and “will be passed directly to consumers.” I’ve always believed that Progressives love the planet but hate the people who live on it. Think about it. They are quick to condemn environmental violators but conveniently ignore the massive amounts of mercury Mother Nature herself spews out by way of volcanoes, deep-sea vents, and geysers. Maybe we should tax the planet, just for good measure.

According to Power Engineering Magazine, by 2016, EPA rules will force the shutdown of “32 mostly coal-fired power plants” in 12 states, and possibly 36 others. The shutdowns will lead to higher power costs, less jobs, and potential rationing. Before long, we’ll be rubbing sticks together to cook food, stay warm, and find our way to the community outhouse.

But, in the meantime…tonight I celebrate. I purged my home of all those hazy mercury-filled bulbs, and I’m switching on every last one of my incandescent bulbs to celebrate — in hopes the Google Earth satellite will drift my way and snap a picture. My house will be one of the brightest spots on the planet, second only to Al Gore’s.

Photo credit: TexasGOPVote.com (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,