What does this mean? Michael Savage breaks it down…
Michael Savage – Al Jazeera Buys Al Gore’s Current TV!
January 3, 2013 by 2 Comments
Please Help Us Finish Our Film Exposing The Radical “Green” Movement
October 18, 2012 by Leave a Comment
The Film
Billings, MT – October 17, 2012 – AXED: The End of Green is an innovative new documentary from award-winning independent filmmaker Jeffrey D. King. It is currently in the fundraising stage and has been pledged some $13,200 from 110 backers so far. Mr. King is enthusiastic that he can reach his $50,000 goal by his November 30th, 1:59 EST deadline. But not without more help from backers. He will not receive a dime unless the project is fully funded, to $50,000, the minimum needed to produce this film.
The subject has been touched on before, but Jeffrey and his crew maintain that their claim that this film will help effect the end of the green movement should not come as a surprise. While people like Al Gore and Lisa Jackson and things like Solyndra and Climategate have been conservative fodder many times over, these are seen by the makers of AXED as mere branches and blossoms on the tree that is the modern environmental movement. They instead seek to hack deep down to the roots and expose and cut off things at their source. Hence AXED. Not all by themselves, as they hope their film “will serve as a catalyst, a rallying point, for people concerned about abuses by the green movement in both government and the media, as well as to educate those not yet fully aware of what is going on around them. All that is really needed to bring this dangerous movement to its kneeʼs is a well timed, well placed, and well delivered blow. What better time than now? What better place than here? What better medium than film?” to quote J. D.
The Message
Rather than slosh together a few nature scenes, economic statistics, and interviews, the film will pay attention to quality and detail, which are key to keeping the audience engaged. To this they need the right team, sufficient funding, and a plan both cohesive and comprehensive. But this is just the technical side of things. What are the actual points the film is trying to make? We have asked one member of his marketing team to give us a few of them. Hereʼs what he has to say:
“The green movement has failed at itʼs stated and/or publicly acknowledged objectives. What many of the more sincere ones, who are the bulk of the movement but tend to be low in the ranks – this is a fairly standard arrangement in top-down movements – neglect is that economic growth, private property rights, and bottom-up, decentralized modes of organization and governance are actually all conducive to a healthy, clean environment, and not the other way around as maintained by many on the left. This is even more the case when these things are in combination. The benefits are multiplied. So when their goals are to save the environment and yet they fail exceedingly to do so, in many cases making things worse or creating new problems, no amount of political power they have accrued and policies they have implemented can be cited as evidence in their favor.”
“The green movement has succeeded in co-opting the coercive power of government to achieve specific policies. But these policies do not help the environment, per se. What they accomplish in the main is to tie up resources, tie up jobs, tie up growth, and tie up our liberties. These things are not conducive to helping the environment and so can and often do cancel out the supposed benefits of the policies, if there even were any. Most rank-and-file greens donʼt seem to know this. They are well-meaning but easily manipulated. But I honestly think that the higher-ups do know it, yet it remains of little concern to them because their real intentions inevitably have little to do with clean air, clean water, or clean energy. Raw power is their motive. It is a hard thing for those who make it to the top to remain pure, to enact policies that some how donʼt increase their power. It is a rare person in such a position that does not seek to use corrupt means to magnify it. I take a few pages from Hayek on this: the worst rise to the top, but also Lord Acton: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
But there is an upside:
“Free Markets work! They are essentially an amalgamation of voluntary exchanges between individuals and groups of individuals. Things that can be exchanged are goods and services, which can include anything and everything that can possibly be traded for something else. Such exchanges would not occur if they were not beneficial to all the parties involved. Not unless coercion or fraud is a factor, but these things would are to be discouraged, prohibited even. Neither of these is present in a consistent free market system, by definition. And just how is such a system conducive to preservation of the environment? Because it is not in anyoneʼs best interest (in a system which discourages coercion and fraud) to pollute or erode or use up because the consumer will do his business elsewhere, once he realizes how detrimental it is to him in the long run. The facts can not be hidden from him if he has the initiative and faculties to uncover them and seek out alternatives, and there are no state-sanctioned roadblocks in his way. Thatʼs what competition is! We do not have truly free markets these days.”
“Federalism works! It is a system of interlocking voluntary compacts on various levels of jurisdiction. It does not root out all problems by itself but it keeps the powers that be jealous for the loyalty of their shared or potential individual members. Ideally, like any other form of competition, the main beneficiary is the consumer, i.e., the citizen. The more levels of federalism there are the more competition, which is why when we essentially only have two levels vying for the hearts and minds of the people, one of them is at the mercy of the other, and they are both as far away from the individual as possible, the products, these jurisdictions, are greatly diminished in quality. We have not had true federalism for close to a century, some would say more. It has been eroding since the day the Constitution was ratified.”
So instead of just decrying the problems that they see, they will offer up solutions and ways to take charge so the that same problems do not arise again.
The Perks
Backers for the project can pledge any amount of $1 or more. Backers who pledge $5 or more will be credited in the film. Backers who give an amount of $25 or greater will not only star in the credits, they will receive special thank-you gifts in the mail. What these gifts are depends on the specific amount, at intervals of $25, $42, $60, $125, $250, $500, $750, $1,000, $2,000, $5,000, and $10,000. As a sort of extra incentive, the gifts handed out for amounts of $1,000 or more, have a limit of how many of these gifts can be claimed. First come first served on those, but there is no limit for the other rewards.
The Producer-Director
Jeffrey D. King (J. D.) is a 21 year old independent filmmaker from the Big Hole area of Montana. There he grew up in a ranching community and became familiar with many of the subjects the film will delve into. Growing up under the Big Sky gave him not just a love for the world around him, the environment, but also a love for freedom. His previous film (Crying Wolf, 2011), about the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park, was the 2012 winner of the SAICFF “Best Creation” Jubilee Award. He was a self-taught filmmaker from a young age. An ambitious and passionate young man with a hunger for the truth, he has a B.S.B.A. in Business Management from Thomas Edison State College and makes his living making commercials and promotional videos. He currently resides around Billings, Montana.
For more information about AXED: The End of Green, contact Jeffrey at
jd@axedthemovie.com or Hank at hank@axedthemovie.com
The AXED: The End of Green Kickstarter funding campaign can be found at http://
www.kickstarter.com/projects/jking/axed
Photo credit: terrellaftermath
Catholics Now Moving Toward Romney
October 17, 2012 by 8 Comments
In 2004, I ran the field operations for Catholics Against Kerry (CaK). We worked hard at the grassroots level in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico, among other states. During the last 10 days of the campaign, we saturated the Youngstown, Ohio/New Castle, Pennsylvania area with dozens of radio spots every day that brought home the point that John Kerry was a phony “Catholic” who supported abortion on demand. The political wisdom about Youngstown’s importance to the final tally in Ohio is that a Democrat MUST get more than 65% in Youngstown, or he will not win Ohio. Al Gore got 65% in 2000 and lost. Our efforts moved Kerry down to 63%, and he lost Ohio by almost exactly what he lost Youngstown by.
The fact that no Democrat has ever lost the Catholic vote and won the Presidency is well known to the political community. This is why up to now, they have lied about where the Catholic vote is. Being Democrats of course, they have overplayed their hand. Some polls actually showed that gay “marriage” was favored by 15% among mass-attending Catholics. But that has finally changed: a new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Pol shows Mitt Romney now winning Catholics in general. But far more importantly, Romney is leading among adherent Catholics who attend Mass regularly by a huge 59/36. This represents a 22 point improvement over the 50/49 edge with adherent Catholics John McCain received in 2008.
This turnaround has not “just happened.” It is the product of a huge outreach to Catholics, especially adherent Catholics across the country and especially in the “swing states.”
In Ohio, Catholic groups have been executing a plan that will see them contact these Mass-attending Catholics 6 times before Election Day. Catholic college students will be knocking on the door of every Catholic family in Ohio. They will be handing these families a score card similar to the ones our CaK field workers handed out. The material will show that it is Mitt Romney, not Barack Obama, whose values more closely align with those of the Catholic Church. Meaningful references to “religious freedoms” and Romney’s pro-life stances are included to help make the point.
Catholics have not “finally come around” as some would have us believe; they were always “there” and were never going to vote for Obama. What a difference an honest poll can produce!
Photo Credit : Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)
Obama’s Secret Campaign Strategy?
October 8, 2012 by 13 Comments
Photo credit: RafePhoto (Creative Commons)
Sun Tzu, the famous Chinese general and military strategist, once said, “All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.” Tzu’s premise was such that tactics, or what is seen, are built on strategy, which isn’t revealed until the battle has been fought. This statement is unequivocally true if there is a strategy mapped and executed against by a knowledgeable and battle-tested leader.
There has been much speculation about President Obama’s debate performance. Indeed, even former Vice President Al Gore lamented Obama’s lack of efficacy by blaming it on Denver’s altitude and the president’s lack of time to acclimate to it prior to the debate. One has to consider, however, that perhaps this is one democrat coming to the aid of another, or maybe the Nobel Prize winners must defend their own.
Of all the excuses and possibilities espoused by the left for Obama’s lethargic attempt at debate with presidential hopeful Romney, none has been stranger than what is now being tossed around in an attempt to re-write history. As laughable as it sounds, some leftist pundits have proclaimed, in boxing terms, that Obama’s tactic was to “take a dive” in an attempt to rally complacent democratic voters. Huh?
You read that correctly. Obama intentionally took a verbal stomping in order to rally complacent democratic voters to assure their presence at the polls on November 6th. The assumption, according to some on the left, is that many voters were so secure in their candidate’s re-election bid they wouldn’t come out to vote. But if, by some miracle, President Obama were to get pummeled in a nationally televised debate, supporters would be forced to come out in droves to vote for him.
Additionally, some leftists have presumed President Obama’s performance, or lack thereof, forced Governor Romney to show all his cards, effectively making him politically impotent prior to the second debate. Romney’s domestic and economic plans, as he played into a carefully laid democratic trap, would be dissected by the Obama camp and aired ad nauseum in pro-Obama campaign ads.
If this hilariously hypothesized tactic is really part of David Axlerod’s campaign strategy for President Obama, then this may go down as the most lopsided republican victory since Reagan/Carter in 1980. And if this tactic is in place then any and all future presidential candidates would do well to never hire anyone from Obama’s staff.
Left Feels Obama’s Pain After Debate Disaster
October 4, 2012 by 6 Comments
Even more delightful than the Wednesday night whoopin Mitt Romney put on Barack Obama was the pain expressed by left-wing media and other pundits clearly in shock at what was universally looked upon as the president’s disastrous performance.
National Journal Editor-in-Chief Ron Fournier passed off the destruction of the Golden Boy as “the curse of incumbency.” “Like many of his predecessors,” writes the longtime AP reporter, “President Obama fell victim Wednesday night to high expectations, a short fuse, and a hungry challenger.”
“I don’t know what he was doing out there. He had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it,” lamented Chris Matthews about Obama’s style and all-round effort in the important first public view of the two candidates. “Obama should watch MSNBC, my last point. He will learn something every night on this show and all these shows.” Obama’s leg-tingle shill no longer considers it necessary to hide from the public his belief that a few nights of following MSNBC programming would instruct the president as to the finer points of making his genius known to the American people!
And poor little Andrew Sullivan. “I can see the logic of some of Obama’s meandering, weak, professorial arguments,” wrote the supremely leftist flack, apparently unable to believe Obama hadn’t purposely thrown the debate, perhaps with some deep, future trap in mind for an oblivious Mitt Romney. Sullivan did eventually blame both Jim Lehrer, “one of the lamest moderators ever,” and Mitt Romney’s “very, very vague and deceptive” closing statement for at least a portion of Obama’s troubles. But in the end, even Sullivan had to admit that Romney had dominated the debate. In fact, so completely undone was Andrew that he actually said a bad word AND handed the election to Romney at the same moment! “How is Obama’s closing statement so f***ing sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.”
Bill Maher, one of a long line of liberal comedians who actually think themselves funny, went from months of trashing Mitt Romney to saying of Obama, “I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Obama looks like he does need a teleprompter.”
After initially blaming Jim Lehrer for having “allowed Mitt Romney to act as moderator”, apparently believing this somehow threw Obama off his stride, Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter claimed the president actually accomplished his true purpose of connecting with voters at home. Never say die.
But the best excuse by far for Mitt Romney’s having cleaned the arrogant clock of the future one term president was offered by Al Gore. Being the expert he is in the diabolical vagaries of Mother Earth, Gore actually blamed the Denver altitude for Barack Obama’s drubbing. It seems Romney had prepared in Denver for an entire day while the president had arrived only a few hours prior to the debate. “When you come to 5000 feet and have only a few hours to adjust,” said Gore before trailing off into an ether of smirk and a knowing smile.
If anything equals the joy of watching Barack Obama, the reputedly golden-tongued idol of the American left go down in utter defeat, it’s watching the devastation of his shills as they grope for some new meaning in their once full and happy lives. Mitt Romney is a cool and savvy customer. We may well be treated to widespread displays of liberal angst twice more before November 6th.
Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach
Why Mitt Romney Won’t Win The Post Debate Swing State Polls
October 4, 2012 by 9 Comments
Tonight Mitt Romney could give the most effective debate performance since Ronald Reagan out debated President Carter, or even since Abraham Lincoln showed up Stephen Douglas, and Mitt Romney will still lose the post debate swing state polls. Why? Because the voter samples that the media pollsters will call are already stacked to favor Democrats over Republicans. It’s almost like a 1970′s Olympics where the Soviets have the East Germans as judges and referees. There’s just no way Mitt Romney can win these polls. Let’s look at the recent reality of actual voter registration and data in the most critical swing states and then compare them to the most recent media polls in each state.
Florida actually lists party registration for their 11.6 million registered voters. 4.6 million voters, or 40%, are Democrats, and 4.2 million voters, or 36%, are Republicans. When over 8 million Floridians vote this year, it will probably be close to the actual registration.
Florida’s most recent exit poll history shows that the average partisan total for the last 4 statewide elections, including the last 2 presidential elections, is: Democrats 37% and Republicans 38%.
2004 Democrat 37% Republican 41%. 2006 Democrat 36% Republican 39%. 2008 Democrat 37% Republican 34%. 2010 Democrat 36% Republican 36%.
Here are some recent biased Florida media polls (compare the level of Republicans): 9/26 CBS/NYTimes Democrat 36% Republican 27% 9/23 Washington Post Democrat 35% Republican 29%
The most recent CBS/NYTimes and Washington Post polls have Republicans at levels not seen in Florida since the 1960′s. How can Romney win the coming media polls with fewer Republicans represented than when Barry Goldwater ran for President?
Ohio doesn’t have registration by declared party, but the most recent exit poll history shows that the average partisan total for the last 4 statewide elections including the last 2 presidential elections is: Democrats 38% and Republicans 36%
2004 Democrat 35% Republican 40% 2006 Democrat 40% Republican 37% 2008 Democrat 40% Republican 31% 2010 Democrat 36% Republican 37%
Here are recent biased Ohio media polls: 9/26 CBS/NYTimes Democrat 35% Republican 26% 9/23 Washington Post Democrat 35% Republican 27% 9/11 NBC/Wall St Journal Democrat 38% Republican 28%
Again the most recent CBS/NYTimes, Washington Post and NBC/WSJ polls have Republicans again under 30% at levels not seen in Ohio since before the Civil War. Although we do have to note that as of this very morning NBC produced a new Ohio poll with 36% Democrats 31% Republicans and a closer Presidential race. At least they had Republicans over 30%. We’ll see if it grows closer to the historical average?
Finally Virginia is another key swing state with no party registration, but there are plenty of exit and recent polls tracking party affiliation. The most recent exit poll history shows that the average partisan total for the last 4 statewide elections including the last 2 presidential elections is: Democrats 36% and Republicans 37%
2004 Democrat 35% Republican 39% 2006 Democrat 36% Republican 39% 2008 Democrat 39% Republican 33% 2009 Democrat 33% Republican 37%
Here are the recent biased Virginia media polls: 10/2 Roanoke College Democrat 36% Republican 27% 9/17 CBS/NYTimes Democrat 35% Republican 26% 9/16 Washington Post Democrat 35% Republican 24% 9/11 NBC/Wall St Journal Democrat 31% Republican 26%
Once again the most recent CBS/NYTimes and Washington Post polls have Republicans well under 30% as did the NBC/WSJ poll – at levels not seen in decades. Again we do have to note that NBC produced a Virginia poll this very morning with Democrats at 32% and Republicans 30%. We’ll see if the Republican number moves closer in future polls to the actual the historical average.
The impact of this bias for Mitt Romney and Republican candidates has been devastating, because, as Democrats vote 90% for their own, so do Republicans. Therefore for every point the Republicans are diluted and taken down, Romney loses a point.
How are all these media polls showing such a drop off of Republican voters? They have changed their methodology to the Axelrod methodology. Having been an exit poll analyst for 8 national elections for CBS radio, we’ve seen first hand the lobbying of the media polls by both parties. Most famous were the calls from Democrat operatives during election day in 2000 to call Florida for Al Gore while the polls were still open. CBS radio didn’t make the bad call, but Dan Rather did. Then in 2002 the exit polls collapsed due to a lack of quality control. In 2004 all the pollsters who weighted their data back to 2000 turnout models, were aghast when the votes were actually counted and proved their polls wrong. John Kerry would not be President.
So recently it was revealed by the Daily Caller that Obama’s most senior campaign strategist David Axelrod has been lobbying Gallup Poll staffers saying that their polls were “saddled with some methodological problems”. Dick Morris reported that Axelrod was upset at Gallup for “generating polling data negative to the President.” Gallup didn’t change their methods and by coincidence found the Justice Department suing them with an unrelated lawsuit. You only have to wonder if these other media pollsters received emails, calls and visits about the correct Axelrod methodology.
So what’s the common Axelrod methodology that causes the media polls to under count Republicans? Are they calling registered voters from the publicly available lists with actual voter history? Those lists easily reflect the 130 million voters who turned out in 2008, or 2010, or have registered since those elections. They truly represent the actual voter population. Good scientific sampling would say pull a random sample of voters from the actual population of voters.
However, David Axelrod has been urging pollsters to randomly dial phones exchanges and cell phone exchanges and merge them somehow without regard to voter affiliation. The 2010 Census said that the American Voting Age Population was over 230 million adults. About 40% don’t vote. Calling the 100 million eligible adults who choose not to register, or are registered, but don’t vote, waters down enthusiastic Republicans. Who knows if the person who is talking to the NBC pollster is really registered to vote? Overall there’s about a quarter of a million landlines in the United States that could be called. Plenty more than actual voters. However, if that doesn’t dilute the Republicans enough, there’s over 330 million wireless cell phone connections in the United States that can be randomly dialed.
So these swing state media pollsters are just randomly dialing the phone book and cell phone listings to water down Republican votes. The deck is stacked. Regardless how Mitt Romney does tonight he can’t win the post debate polls – unless they call voter lists and make sure the demographics match the real voter file for age, gender, race geography and even party.
It would be very interesting if someone in the mainstream media actually called an actual voter list to compare that result to the randomly dialed phone exchanges result. Romney might actually win. We may never know. Just like 2000 and 2004 and 2008, on November 6, we just may have to actually count the votes to really know who’s going to win.
(Full disclosure: we do poll for Republican candidates, but do NOT work for the Romney campaign.)
www.mclaughlinonline.com
McLaughlin and Associates
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore Creative Commons
Dog Eat Dog! Unleash Romney Tonight!!
October 3, 2012 by 3 Comments
Unleash Romney, is what his handlers must do tonight! This is the most important debate, and it well may determine the election.
The dog story got some mileage for Obama when he brought up that Romney had put their family dog in a cage on top of the car when they made a trip to their summer home. First of all, with 5 kids in a small car, there was not much room for a big dog; so rather than leave him, Romney placed the dog on top of the car in a kennel. We all know dogs love the fresh air sticking their heads out of the windows or like riding in back of a pickup truck. But Obama made it to be an animal cruelty comment, as he aimed to show that Romney must have no feelings, treating a dog that way.
Then some pundits remembered that in one of Obama’s book’s, he recalled his days in Indonesia and mentioned that he even ate dog there.
Many times in presidential debates, since they have been televised, a gaffe, a grimace or gesture, or a quick quip have won the debate. These can be pivotal moments. I well remember some of them. Al Gore made a habit of strolling over from his debate lectern to walk right in front of his opponent in order to intimidate him, but George Bush was warned he might do this. So Bush just nodded and went right on with his points, never missing a beat. Nixon refused to wear makeup his first televised debate, and it showed him as a grizzly bear (and looking a lot older), so at the next one, he wore makeup. Jack Kennedy used the TV to his advantage in his debates.
Reagan had been plagued by pundits saying he was too old for the office. He was able to turn that around and won the debate and probably the election when he told his opponent, “I will not hold your inexperience and youth against you, if you will not hold my experience and age against me.” In another debate, Al Gore sighed and rolled his eyes in derision as Bush spoke, reminiscent of a teenager rolling his eyes when a parent is lecturing them. That did not earn him any points.
If Romney is to win this debate, he must go after the President in the same manner as he did when he won the debate in Florida when he took on Newt Gingrich and Perry as well as others. He went after his opponents there with gusto. He should forget he is debating the President and debate the “candidate” Obama instead. He should clearly bring out the President’s lack of response to the chaos and our ambassador’s killing in the middle east. He should pound on the economy, which is not improving, no matter the claims from this administration “that we are turning the corner.” That is simply not true.
Tonight may well be a make-or-break deal. It is estimated that 50 million viewers will be watching this. For the first time, many will be seeing or hearing Romney unfiltered, instead of being slanted by the liberal press to make it look like he is inexperienced. Tonight, the audience will get to know him as a person.
Far too many times, the Obama camp has painted Romney as not experienced enough, but he is ten time more experienced than Obama was when he was running in 2007. And the media never once questioned Obama’s lack of experience then. The inexperience has shown over and over, in the way he reacts or does not react to crises and his treatment of foreign dignitaries. Obama did little until he became a senator (by default) in Illinois and then voted present most of the time, a clear indication of his inability to make decisions. He has always spent more time speaking than working with anything. Even his community organizing work was mostly speaking and campaigning. Then when he became U.S. Senator, he spent all of that time on the stump campaigning and seldom showed up in Congress, even to vote. He has been constantly campaigning most of his four years in office now. Romney must point out his opponent’s weaknesses and highlight his own strengths.
It has to be Obamagedden tonight!
The Electability Myth
September 28, 2012 by 2 Comments
TAMPA — When Republicans, particularly of the Washington establishment variety, start talking about “electability,” it’s time to activate our nonsense filters.
Recall 1999 when establishment Republican types started whooping up a vote-getting machine named George W. Bush. Never mind that this guy was the son of a noblesse oblige, patrician of a president who, after eight years of tutelage under the Gipper, reverted to non-conservative form in office, in the process piddling away the largest favorability ratings in presidential history.
Pay no attention, the pooh-bahs crooned, to the fact that young W had no visible conservative bona-fides, and that his “compassionate conservatism” (as opposed to the mean old un-hyphenated variety) sounded a lot like liberalism. No, the little men behind the Republican establishment curtain insisted, just focus on the happy fact that this guy is a dead-bang winner, a vote-magnet of the first water.
So how did that work out? In 2000, Mr. Electability got more than a half million fewer votes than Al Gore, who needed Naomi Wolf to teach him how to dress in the morning, and who some of his own supporters described as a man-like creature. (Then in ’04 the vote-getting machine barely beat Jean-François Kennedy Heinz Fonda Kerry, who resembles E.T., and is even more foreign.) Only the peculiarities of our Electoral College system and Ralph Nader’s ego (remember the Florida 2000 results) put Mr. Electability in office.
W’s vote-getting prowess proved an illusion. But once in office, he did prove that he was better at spending tax-payers’ money than even Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter in a wind storm.
Read More at spectator.org. By Larry Thornberry.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)
Democrat Platform Attacks Those Who Refuse To Believe In Their Global Warming Hoax
September 11, 2012 by 7 Comments
The Democrats couldn’t sell us Global warming and get us to sit by while they destroyed our economy and line their pockets with their sneaky Cap and Trade scheme. It seemed that every time their Champion of Fraud Al Gore scheduled a “Global Warming” rally in Washington, it snowed, so they had to retool. They thought that just changing the name of their hoax to the more pliable “Climate Change” would fool us; after all, like Barack Obama, it actually stood for nothing and everything all at the same time. Nevertheless, it still hasn’t worked.
Now they want to sell us these lies as “Environmental Justice” and make their hoax a part of “national security”. The same Barack Obama who has sent money and support to the Islamist terrorists who are rampaging through the Middle East and threatening our ally Israel, the same Barack Obama who reassured the Russians he would be freer after his re-election – whatever that means- -is talking “national security” to sell us this hoax.
Notice that if it is too rainy, they are right; if it doesn’t rain enough, they are right; if an earthquake or hurricane comes to us, they are right; and if we don’t let them regulate everything, we’re evil, and they are right. This is the language the Democrats used to once again try to sell their hoax.
“The national security threat from climate change is real, urgent, and severe. The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of vital ecosystems across the globe.”
The fact that more and more scientists, including top NASA scientist Roy Spencer, have declared the notion of man-made global warming a hoax means nothing to these people.
This didn’t stop the Democrats from directly attacking those who dare to call their secular sacrament a hoax. “Our opponents have moved so far to the right as to doubt the science of climate change, advocate the selling of our federal lands, and threaten to roll back environmental protections that safeguard public health. Their leaders deny the benefits of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts – benefits like job creation, health, and the prevention of tens of thousands of premature deaths each year. They ignore the jobs that are created by promoting outdoor recreation, cleaning up our air, and promoting a healthy environment.”
In case any halfwit reading their platform didn’t “get it” up to that point, they added a charge that climate change is discriminatory (blacks covered, CHECK) and disadvantages the poor (CHECK). These people are lunatics.
Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach
Photo credit: terrellaftermath
Loading ...
Allen West A Victim Of Voter Fraud And Crooked Democrat Officials
Though Colonel Allen West is getting worked over big time by the Democrat machine in St. Lucie County, Florida, his campaign manager (Tim Edson) vows to soldier on in an uphill battle to get an accurate vote tally in a recount sought by the congressman. “We’re going to take every action necessary to get the answers we’re looking for,” Edson says. “The rule of law should be followed,” says one West attorney, as plans to appeal to the State’s Attorney and Governor Rick Scott go forward!
Democrat Secretary of Elections Supervisor Gertrude Walker, resplendent in an expensive all-black outfit accentuated with stunning silver jewelry, refused to turn over to Mr. West’s team the poll book sign-in sheets “so we can compare the number of voters signed in to the number of votes cast,” says Edson. She also refused to talk to any representatives of the media. When I asked about the procedures of the recount demanded by West, Walker’s taxpayer-funded attorney Cynthia Angelos said, “I don’t know…you’ll have to ask the board of election supervisors.” Unfortunately, they couldn’t discuss how the recount would be conducted either.
Walker, a Democrat government official for nearly 40 years who is being paid a whopping $110,000 yearly salary, is clearly stonewalling the West team as reports have surfaced that she locked out observers who wanted to watch the vote-counting at 7 p.m. on election night!
At issue at the 7 a.m. emergency Sunday meeting of the St. Lucie County election board is a 70% voter turnout and an initially announced early vote recount that morphed into a machine recount of only early votes cast on November 1, 2, and 3 because “We have to send the official count in today.” When I asked, “Aren’t you just cherry picking like Al Gore did?”, I again was stonewalled by several officials and operatives. A re-feed into the same machines was being done because a “memory card manually failed.” A worn print cartridge created such a faint print from one machine that I could barely see the numbers. I walked down one aisle at Walker’s headquarters and found it lined with uncovered boxes of ballots, boxes anyone could have picked up and removed from the building!
No one seemed to know who was responsible for determining just how many numbers were in dispute. One audience member told me that he thinks a two page ballot in St. Lucie County might have been responsible for problems and misunderstandings. He told me that a figure indicating participation by 141% of County voters arose because one official was tabulating one vote per person while another counted one vote for each page. A member of a long time Stuart, Florida media family and fellow blogger, his explanation seemed as plausible as anything else I heard during the course of the day.
No one would assure me that the recount wasn’t being done only in certain precincts possibly favorable to Democrat Patrick Murphy, or that the recount wouldn’t stop just short of the mandatory, automatic total recount figure. I repeatedly asked a number of officials why they initially promised to recount all of the early votes and then suddenly decided to recount only three particular days! No one knows. No one cares.
Additionally, the FBI was not there to ensure that the proceedings would become part of a public record. That organization can investigate and expose our beloved American military hero who turned certain defeat into a surging victory, but it can’t vet a newly re-elected president who couldn’t produce enough of his own records to obtain even the security clearance demanded of his Secret Service detail.
Strange that the FBI couldn’t show up to observe a recount for a true military veteran and hero now being hung out to dry by a corrupt Democrat machine and Democrat political newcomer whose mug shot was featured on a campaign poster! How can America survive?