Our nation is no longer a Representative Republic, it has officially become a communist dictatorship. Our United States Constitution has been rendered null and void. After 233 years of being the shining city on a hill, the bright beacon of liberty and freedom to all of the world, the lights have been extinguished.
Great evil has gripped our nation in the form of the most corrupt President and the most corrupt Congress in our nation’s history. The democrat/communist party has succeeded where the British (twice) The French, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union failed. They have destroyed the United States.
This didn’t happen overnight. This has been over 100 years in the making. With the advent of the progressive movement, what many label as liberalism, there has been an incredible effort to fundamentally change our nation from a Representative Republic, a Constitutional form of government, to a centrally planned, command and control type of communist dictatorship.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did more to destroy the fabric of this society than any other President in history, that is until Barack Obama came along. Roosevelt, like Obama today, took office during an economic recession. And like Obama, Roosevelt used this opportunity as an excuse to greatly remake government.
Roosevelt, like Obama, bullied corporations, took over banks, business concerns, tried to dictate salaries, replace CEOs and many other unconstitutional activities. So rabid was the lust to change America from a free nation to his vison of a command and control form of government, that FDR even threatened the Supreme Court with the notion of adding to it’s size a number of justices so as to delude any attempt to overrule his authority. Something a President is allowed to do, with the advice and consent of Congress.
The major concern of the day, as it is now, was joblessness. We were in a deep recession, much worse than now. Roosevelt’s solution, predictably, was all sorts of government control, regulation, and over all heavy handed meddling. In other words, the free market system was all but abandoned. The result? A serious recession, one that could have been turned around, became what is now known as The Great Depression.
How do I know that recession could have been turned around? Well, it was no worse than the recession America faced in the 1970's under both Ford and Carter. Ronald Reagan was able to come in and through common sense, and Conservative principles, turn it all around. It took some time, and most of Reagan’s first term still saw rough economic waters, but he ended up creating the greatest peace time economic growth in our nation’s history.
Now this not to say that all of Roosevelt’s programs were bad. We got things like government backing for our banking system: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, was born as a result of the economic collapse, for example. However, most of Roosevelt’s plans were rooted in the ideology of socialism and communism. (Basically the same thing)
Roosevelt instituted massive federal work programs, CCC camps for youth, and so on. Yes, it got people back to work, and many landmark buildings, bridges, dams, and other outstanding projects came about, but in the process, the free market system was all but abandoned. This ended up delaying economic recovery for a decade.
Economists will argue about this until the end of time, but many feel that it was only because of World War II that the American economy eventually recovered. It was most certainly afterward when things got back to where they should be.
One of the other things to come out of the Imperial Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt is the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. Before Roosevelt, Presidents lived by the example set by our first President George Washington.
As you may, or may not know, after the Revolution, Congress, and the people, were quite ready to make Washington king. He refused. In fact, it is said that King George III, ruler of England asked American artist Benjamin West what would Washington do after Great Britain acknowledged the nation’s independence. Would he take his Army and create a government? West reportedly told King George no, that Washington would probably go back to his farm. The king scoffed, then went on to say that if he did that, he would be the greatest man alive.
Presidents ever since had respected that tradition, until Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt, who like Obama, controlled the media, the information, was elected to two terms, then an unprecedented third term, and an alarming fourth term. Only death ended what had become a defacto dictatorship.
Even though Roosevelt's policies were dangerous to the Republic and many did far more harm than good, through manipulation of the media, and strong propaganda campaigns, voters willingly kept voting for him.
Ever since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment, democrat/communists have been scheming for ways to take control through other means. Since they can’t just install a dictator for life in the oval office, they have sought to make Americans so dependent on government, rather than themselves, that the would always vote for those who would pledge to create and maintain this type of arrangement.
One of the most horrific notions created by Roosevelt is something straight out of Karl Marx’s play book of communist ideology. Roosevelt proposed a "Second Bill Of Rights." While I admit many of these things seem to be quite OK, on the surface, each and everyone requires you to totally and completely give away every single right and freedom that God gave you, and the Constitution guarantees you. They require you to submit every facet of your life to the command and control of the dictator.
Let’s take a listen to FDR’s propostion:
Now let’s take a look at some of these:
* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation. OK, so the government is going to guarantee you a job. What if you want to work in one sort of field, but the government has a different idea for you? By the way, France "guarantees" jobs through legislation that makes it almost impossible to fire someone once you hire them. The results?
For one thing, unemployment is permanently in the double digits. It is incredibly high among the youth of the nation. Employers are incredibly reluctant to hire them. What if they turn out to be worthless? They’re stuck. Currently, President Sarkozy is struggling with new laws that allow for a probation period where younger workers can be hired, then fired, if things don’t work out. As expected, this is unpopular, and riots have been common.
Another issue is the fact that if you can’t fire someone, in keeping with human nature, those employees will tend to be less productive, less competent, because no matter what, they have a job for life. We see that in this country in union shops, and most especially in education, where teachers unions constructed a scheme where it is almost impossible to fire a lousy teacher.
The entire nation suffers under these type of systems.
Roosevelt mentions adequate food, clothes, and recreation. Who decides this? Who controls the "adequate" supply of food, clothes, and recreation?
I’m a bit of a gourmand eater. I like fine foods, right along side with my cheeseburgers, pizza, and burritos. There are many, especially in government, that bombard me, and 100's of millions of other Americans, daily, with propaganda that tells me all of this is bad. Will I be forced to exist on a diet of tofu and sprouts? Or just watery soup and day old bread, when they have it?
Every communist nation that guarantees food, has massive shortages, and starving citizens.
And what about clothes? Americans are rather fashion conscious. We like our blue jeans as well as our Armani suits. For me, a pair of shorts and a comfortable tee shirt is the uniform of the day, 365 days a year, unless there is an occasion. For others, they simply "must" be dressed in the finest bespoke attire, as nothing else would be "adequate" to their needs, wants, and desires. How do you think that would work out?
And what about recreation? Is that a day off? Is it free ticket to the movies? The baseball game? Or is it a certain amount of allotted TV or computer time? All of these can be considered recreation. Who decides?
I grew up at the drag strip. Drag raced motorcycles, and was blessed to be able to race nationwide because of the fruits of my labor, and a bit of help from sponsors. This has been and always will be my favorite form of recreation. I would love nothing more than to own a professional drag racing team, but alas, the yearly budget for a top NHRA team is north of $3 million. To me, "adequate" recreation would be owning one of these teams. For the millions who participate in drag racing, from the sportsman level to professional ranks, to the fans, this is their "adequate" recreation. Will Uncle Sugar by me a Top Fuel dragster? And if not, why not?
One of the things that makes the United States of America the greatest nation the world has ever known is freedom. In this country anyone can be anything they wish to be. Our history is filled with stories of men and women who have beat all the odds against them, poor education, physical and mental handicaps, poverty, even horrible prejudices, to became successful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. This is because of freedom and liberty, a concept that was only a dream, and virtually unknown to mankind before America was founded. It was certainly something no government had ever embraced.
Of course, along with the freedom to succeed beyond all dreams, comes the possibility to fail spectacularly, and that’s as it should be. In fact, it’s necessary. It’s obvious that we learn from failure, it’s the necessary process mankind has used to develop since the beginning of time.
Since the beginning, man has sought to improve his life. He has invented all sorts of gadgets, schemes, tools, and so forth. Some have been lucky and just had their ideas work the first time. But generally all great inventions are birthed through a painful process of failure, before the success. More profound is the fact that often, through the process of learning what doesn’t work, completely new things are discovered, and new inventions come into being.
This is the same in business. Some businesses fail, some succeed. Our history is filled with great businessmen, captains of industry, who failed spectacularly, many times on multiple occasions, before becoming household names and fabulously successful. This didn't happen because they somehow blindly stumbled into success. No, this happened because through failure, for any number of reasons, these great men, and women, learned what worked, and most importantly, what didn’t work. This is vital.
Now under the communist system, and the current thinking of the democrat/communist party, certain businesses are deemed "too big to fail." This sets our entire system on it’s ear. It causes failures to be put on life support, sometimes indefinitely.
Several things happen when something becomes "too big to fail." The biggest change, when government comes along, is control. These once independent businesses now become micro-managed by government, usually by people who know absolutely nothing about business. These businesses are subject to the every whim of politicians. Sound and proven business practices go out the window.
With failure no longer an option, productivity, creativity, and profitability suffer, and ofttimes disappear. Worse, competitors who didn’t make the mistakes that caused the business to fail, are now at a disadvantage, because those propped up by government have the advantage.
As government has deemed something "too big to fail", all sound business practices disappear.
Government will operate at incredible loses, into infinity, to keep their pet industry on life support. Look at AMTRAK or pretty much any other mass transit system. They are incredible money losers. But politicians have deemed them "too big to fail". So billions annually are poured down that bottomless pit.
So what does this have to do with you? Well....under communism, government deems you "too big to fail." That of course is quite alluring and comforting to many who don’t understand the ramifications of this. I mean gee, no matter what happens, Uncle Sugar is going to take care of you:
Of course, for Uncle Sugar to be able to take care of your every need, he must take from those that produce, and give to those that don’t. One could think of Uncle Sugar as "Robin Hood" or a thief in the night.
The end result though is a poorer quality of life for everyone. You hear the communists talk constantly about "economic justice." It’s the same tired old class warfare the democrat/communist party has waged on success for a century. Their entire existence is based on making you hate people with money and success, rather than celebrate them. Their entire spiel is that somehow, by simply being successful, those "evil rich" have stolen YOUR future!
Of course, it doesn’t work that way, it’s not a zero-sum gain. There is no limit to economic growth. In other words, if I make a dollar, it doesn’t prevent someone else from also making a dollar. In fact, under capitalism, I must make a dollar, so I can spend it, for others to gain a dollar.
The communists infiltrated our schools decades ago, so the concept of all of this has been lost over time, only to be replaced with an inherent hatred for those more successful than others. We see it at every level.
We’ve seen a disturbing trend where games are played but no one keeps an official score, where there are no winners or losers, and everyone gets a trophy, just for showing up. This is counterintuitive to human nature, as man is instinctively competitive. But for the communist system to work, that must be dampened. It must be stifled.
Common sense tells us that competition is good. It breeds higher quality. Not only in business, with superior goods and services, but in life. It is that competitive spirit that founded this nation. It’s that competitive spirit that made man get off the couch and exercise so he could meet hot chicks!
Unfortunately, for the communist, the competitive spirit also thwarts their plans of domination over mankind. It’s that competitive spirit that will not allow man to have his freedom and liberty, once gained, to be stolen from him, without a fight.
This is why the communists seek to condition children to be less competitive. It just more of the charming evils they bring to the table with them.
Here are some more "rights" FDR proposed:
* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
Who determines what a "decent living" is? And what is a "decent living?" This discussion alone could last into eternity. For some, "decent" would be "three hots and a cot" for others nothing short of the "rock star" lifestyle will do. Fortunately, in America, you have the opportunity to have either one. Not the right, but the opportunity.
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad. Sounds good, where do I sign up!
How do we stop nations abroad from unfair practices? I can hear the anti-war protesters now! Instead of shouting "no war for oil" it’ll be "no war for unfair business practices!" Just doesn’t have that same ring, does it?
But just as it IS our nation’s policy to go to war over oil, it would necessarily be policy to go to war against nations that trade or compete unfairly on the open market.
Let me know how that turns out, I’ll wait here.
*The right of every family to a decent home.
Who decides what a "decent" home is. And what is "decent?" Is it a shotgun shack, a FEMA trailer, forty acres and a mule, or one of the McMansions that are popular among new home buyers in Texas? What if they run out of mules?
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. *The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
That’s right, you too can become "too big to fail", and even too big to get sick!
*The right to a good education.
This is already an epic failure. We had good schools, led the world. Then Jimmy Carter came up with a central command and control system through the creation of the Department of Education during his presidency. The march to mediocrity thus began!
The bottom line on all of this is simple. In order for this Utopian system to come to pass, you must surrender all of your rights to the state. You must give up every semblance of freedom and liberty. You submit your life to the will of nameless, faceless bureaucrats who answer to no one.
Capitalism seeks to bring everyone up, to allow everyone the potential to experience unlimited growth and success, so long as they work for it. Under capitalism, there are no guarantees whatsoever, except the right to either spectacularly succeed, or fail, based on your own talent, and ambition.
Under communism, "economic justice" is sought. Those that produce are actually punished, sometimes greatly, for personal achievement. In an effort to "spread the wealth," those who have the drive, the spirit to excel are punished through confiscatory taxes, and other penalties for exceeding an artificial "limit to success" placed on them by government.
So unlike capitalism, where the goal is to allow success for all, in effect raising the standard of living for all people, communism, socialism, Marxism, whatever ism you want to call it, in effect, reduces the standard of living, the quality of life, for all.
Quite simply, where capitalism seeks to build up, communism seeks to tear down.
Communism is the ideology of destruction.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
_____Winston Churchill
Just so you know, Roosevelt’s "Second Bill of Rights" the notion of them, have never went away. They are deeply rooted in communism, and all of the cool communists, like Barack Obama and his corrupt Congress, are embracing these ideas with gusto.
We are on the precipice of disaster in this nation. Our Constitution has been rendered null and void by the actions of this corrupt Congress. This isn’t the first America has faced destruction through communism. It’s just the first time it has seemingly succeeded.
In 1948 John Southerland, through his animated series Fun Facts About America, created a short film Make Mine Freedom. This film is just as prudent now, as it was then.
A bit of a side note, our friends over at Hillbuzz.org use the name "Dr Utopia," exclusively, when referring to Barack Obama. After watching the film, you’ll understand why!
So what the hell does this have to do with Jim DeMint?
Well....... it’s quite well known that the nation is solidly against the so-called "health care bill" that is on the eve of becoming the law of the land. Only one third of the nation supports this travesty. Obama and his corrupt democrat/communist Congress don’t care.
In fact, it looks like the 2010 elections are going to see the absolute destruction of the democrat/communist party at the ballot box. It’s going to be a disaster for them. They will lose both Houses of Congress, and their President may, if the right people are elected, face impeachment. They don’t care. This bill so destroys America as it is, so tears down the Republic, they feel it’s all worth it.
Oh, I know, some think that’s crazy talk. But what this health care legislation does is enslave the nation, and in their calculations will set up a system where they can gain permanent control.
Now I know that may not make sense. But look at programs like Social Security and Medicare Over time, they have become sacred. Democrat/communists have scared old people to death for decades by telling them "evil" Republicans were going to take away their goodies.
Ironically, this very legislation does just that! It cuts programs by a half trillion dollars. It will severely limit access to health care to those on Medicare.
The democrat/communists feel their way to permanent rule, and they want to rule, not govern, is by getting everyone used to depending on the government, not themselves, for their most basic needs.
So...in the short term, they are willing to lose it all, to gain their long term dream of total domination of America, their total domination of mankind.
Now, the Republicans, for their part, have done an incredibly poor job of stopping the destruction of the Republic, pretty much useless, in fact, but that’s a whole entire column unto itself.
Here’s the thing.... the communists know the jig is up come November 2010. They fully expect to lose it all. One of the litmus tests for anyone running to replace these evil men and women in Congress will be their promise to repeal this legislation. In fact, due to ineptness on their part, the GOP is basically reduced to using this as their only option. Not much of a strategy.
As you know, this entire process has taken place behind closed doors, with no Republicans allowed. The Senate bill is 2700 pages long. It took less than 20 to write the entire Constitution!
Knowing that Republicans are already promising to repeal this unconstitutional monstrosity once they take back Congress, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, a certain casualty in 2010, has added wording that makes this virtually impossible to repeal. This, of course is unconstitutional, in and of itself, and violates Senate rules.
This provision seeks to illegally bind future Congresses to this incredibly bad legislation forever.
From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
At first, Senator Jim DeMint starts off with a few points of parliamentary inquiry which seem rather dull, but like any good prosecutor, DeMint is carefully building a case — and his target is a particularly noxious clause in Harry Reid’s ObamaCare bill. On page 1020 of the text, DeMint discovers that Reid has created a rule binding future sessions of Congress to a supermajority requirement to overrule the bill’s rationing board, the Independent Medical Advisory Board, whose purpose (stated on page 1001) is to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending." DeMint demands an explanation of how the Majority Leader can allow legislation to alter the rules of the Senate, both on the floor and in committee. The Weekly Standard has the key portion of the transcript:
There ’s one provision that I found particularly troubling and it’s under section C, titled "Limitations on changes to this subsection."
And I quote — "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
This is not legislation. It’s not law. This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a Senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future Senates.
I mean, we want to bind future Congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future Congresses.
Morrissey goes on to add:
As I recall, Congress is not allowed to pass rules that bind future Congresses. In the House, the rules have to be offered and approved at the beginning of each session. The Senate has standing rules, but they are not in the form of law that requires further legislation to alter — legislation that would be, under this bill, out of order even to introduce. It basically makes Harry Reid the dictator of the Senate, not just now, but in perpetuity.
Is it unconstitutional? The ability of each Congress to govern itself is certainly strongly implied in Article I, Section 5:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Clearly the founders did not intend that to mean that the first Congress could set the rules in perpetuity, and indeed as DeMint points out, rule changes have been made consistently without resorting to legislation to accomplish them because of the orders of a prior Congress. Put another way, the elected representatives of today should not have greater authority than those who will follow them. Any attempt to pass this into legislation aggrandizes the power of this Congress at the expense of those that follow.
And as DeMint points out, it sets a very dangerous precedent regardless of which party is in power. What will be next — a Republican Congress declaring any future bill that increases taxes out of order? Would Democrats sit still for that, too?
Update: Gabriel Malor says the issue isn’t constitutionality, but the substance of what it protects. Be sure to read it all.
So this is where we are at. Communist thugs, disguised as legislators, have killed the United States of America. They have voided the Constitution. They have rendered the 222 years of precedence since the ratification of our Constitution, irrelevant.
The rule of law no longer exits in the United States of America.
We no longer live in a Representative Republic. We now reside in a communist dictatorship where the will of the people no longer matters and the will of the government will be forced upon the people with an iron fist.
Can this be stopped? Not by anyone in Washington, that’s for sure.
So what now?
Many are making their way to Washington as I write this. The chat rooms, twitter tweets, and Facebook posts are filled with those who are going and imploring others to "just show up" in DC on Christmas Eve, presumable to stage a large protest, and possibly some civil disobedience of some kind.
Here’s what I know for sure: The time for reasonable negotiation with the radicals in this nation is over. Conservatives outnumber the evil liberal/progressive/communist element in this country three to one. We can defeat them by sheer numbers alone. But we must be willing to fight. We must be willing to risk it all to save the nation.
We must all come together and stand up against the most tyrannical and corrupt government out people have ever known. The old Revolutionary cry of "Unite or die" has never been more poignant, more appropriate than now.
The price of doing this will be high, almost unbearable to some, but the price of doing nothing will be eternal slavery for us, our children, and their children. The price of doing nothing will be allowing the greatest nation mankind has ever known to vanish from the face of the earth. To see the beacon of liberty and freedom to go dark forever.
The price for either course of action is high. It’s up to the good people of America to decide if they want that price to be paid in the service of liberty and freedom, or of tyranny and evil.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll has some very interesting bits of data scattered within. As expected in this poll, Barack Obama’s favorable/unfavorable numbers are upside down, and support for his unconstitutional "health care reform" has collapsed.
Being an NBC poll, the internals are about what you’d expect:
Out of the 1008 questioned, democrats are over sampled by 6 percentage points over Republicans, though those who claim to have voted for Obama vs McCain are closer with only 3 points between them. So that sort of brings it back a little closer to reality.
Ninety percent of those polled are registered voters, not always the most reliable sample, as out of those polled, only sixty-seven percent voted. So one would have to consider this a soft sample. In other words those polled may, or may not reflect the mood of the nation as well as a sample that contained a higher percentage of likely voters. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percent.
What is interesting though is what is down further into the poll. Half of those polled were asked who they respected the most and half were asked who they respected the least. This yields some remarkable findings:
Now I'm going to mention some people who have served in public life at some point in the past decade. Please tell me which one or two of these people, if any, you have the most regard and respect for
THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE
Barack Obama......................28
Colin Powell..........................27
Bill Clinton.............................21
George W Bush.....................17
Hillary Clinton......................14
John McCain.........................13
Sarah Palin............................13
Dick Cheney...........................9
Al Gore...................................8
Joe Biden................................3
None.......................................3
Not sure.................................3
Knowing the sample, that doesn’t seem all that unreasonable. What is simply remarkable is Joe Biden, the Vice President, with almost four decades in Congress is tied with "none of the above" and "I don’t have a clue" for dead last on the old respect-o-meter.
This next question is where it gets a bit more interesting:
Now I'm going to read you some people who have served in public life at some point in the past decade. Please tell me which one or two of these people, if any, you have the least regard and respect for.
THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE
George W Bush................33
Dick Cheney.....................27
Al Gore..............................19
Barack Obama.................19
Sarah Palin.......................16
Bill Clinton........................14
Hillary Clinton..................10
Joe Biden.............................9
John McCain.......................5
Colin Powell.........................1
None.....................................3
This is interesting to me mainly because it shows how just wording a question differently can yield somewhat different results. While in the first question Barack Obama is the most respected out of the bunch. When a different group is asked to name those who are least respected Obama has the dubious honor of finishing rather high in the ranking here as well. In fact, on the old disrespect-o-meter, more people have little regard for Obama than Sarah Palin.
What does this really mean? Practically nothing! But it tells us that in the grand scheme of things Sarah Palin may have a little work to do yet, when it comes to repairing her image, after being savaged by the media non-stop for a year. Of course, she has plenty of opportunities to do just that.
On the other hand, Barack Obama has done all he is ever going to do. While folks tend to like him personally, he consistently earns poor marks for actual job performance, which is what matters. So, for Obama, it’s all downhill from here.
Here is the latest polling from Battleground. This comes right on the heels of Gallop polling that also shows the majority of Americans consider themselves conservative. This is no fluke either. And as much as we’d love to say that Obama is driving people away from his and his party’s rapidly dying ideology, the truth is Battleground polling, since 2002, has consistently found similar results. Battleground, a bipartisan polling group, has a record of being very accurate.
Bruce Walker over at the American Thinker has some great analysis:
The Battleground Poll and the Battle for America
There's good news for conservatives in the latest Battleground Poll. The political implications are profound...if the already-energized conservative base takes even more initiative.
In August 2008, I wrote an article on "The Biggest Missing Story in Politics." The article explains that conservatives are an overwhelming majority of America. One year later, I wrote an update on that theme, this time based on the Gallup Poll which showed that conservatives outnumber liberals in virtually every state in the union. I have been writing about the remarkable Battleground Poll results in many articles for many years.
The Battleground Poll reveals the internals of its poll. It also asks respondents the same demographic questions in each poll: What is your education level? What is your age? What is your religious affiliation? What is your marital status? Question D3 asks respondents to describe their ideology. The choices are "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "somewhat liberal," "very liberal," and "unsure/refused." Those asked by the Battleground Poll -- if they dislike the liberal label -- can call themselves moderates, they can refuse to answer, and they can express an uncertainty about their ideology. Only those certain of their ideology and willing to label themselves are considered conservative in the poll.
The Battleground Poll is not a Republican polling organization. It is, rather, one of the few bipartisan polling organizations. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the language of the questions for respondents, so that the questions asked are not only fairly worded, but unusually fairly worded. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the population sample, so that polls results are not skewed because too many Democrats, too many Republicans, or too many independents are included. The Battleground Poll also has proven very accurate over many elections.
The responses to Question D3 have been remarkably consistent. Respondents have changed dramatically about what they thought of President Bush or of the state of the economy or the most important issues facing our nation. Respondent may swing quite a bit about which party they support or trust the most. But in one single area of this long list of polling data, the American people have not wavered at all from Battleground Poll to Battleground Poll: About sixty percent of the American people, in poll after poll, year after year, describe themselves as "conservative."
On December 16, 2009, Battleground released its latest poll. In this one, 63% of the American people described themselves as "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative." The rest of America -- not just liberals, but moderates and people who were unsure about their ideology or chose not to respond to that question, totaled only 37% of America. A measly one percent of Americans called themselves moderates; 25% of Americans called themselves "somewhat liberal"; and 8% of Americans called themselves "very liberal."
This is no aberration. Consider in Battleground Poll results since June 2002 the percentage of Americans who have described themselves as conservative: June 2002 (59%), September 2003 (59%), April 2004 (60%), June 2004 (59%), September 2004 (60%), October 2005 (61%), March 2006 (59%), December 2007 (58%), July 2007 (63%), May 2008 (62%), August 2008 (60%), September 2008 (59%), and October 2008 (56%).
In the November 2008 Battleground Poll, for the first and only time, the straight question of "conservative" or "liberal" was not posed to respondents. Instead, the poll asked respondents two separate questions: fiscal ideology was asked in Question D6 and social ideology was asked in Question D7. The Battleground Poll clearly intended to refine Question D3. What were the results? Fiscal conservatives in Question D6 were 69% of respondents. Social conservatives were 53% of respondents and social liberals were 39%. While that sounds like social conservatism is a weak link, that is misleading: a whopping 34% of all Americans described themselves as "very conservative" on social issues, by far the largest very intense group in any Battleground Poll.
What does this mean for American politics today? It ought to boldly empower conservatives. The "right," which every Democrat leader reflexively attacks whenever political opposition to his plans grows strong, boasts the overwhelming majority of Americans. This explains why the left's ballot initiatives in California last year failed, in some cases, in every single county of the state and why the gay marriage ballot measure failed in liberal Maine. This also explains why Obama runs away from "labels" (all leftists do, and have for many years).
What it means in politics is that any true conservative against a true leftist should carry every state and win by a landslide. But it means more than that. Conservatives in the areas of culture, media, entertainment, and education are treated like unwanted stepchildren, or worse (despite the fact that conservatives on average are better-educated than liberals).
The worst victims of invidious bigotry in America today are conservatives. Only a tiny percentage of professors are conservative. The same is true for government-supported media like NPR, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Libraries are dominated by the minority left. How different would America be if fifty or sixty percent of teachers, librarians, professors, public media producers, and staff in government-supported organizations were conservative?
That ought to be a goal for conservatives. Winning elections is fine, but how much more vital is it for us to recover at least an equal voice in colleges, media, schools, libraries, and entertainment? What is wrong with us, the overwhelming majority of Americans, demanding not to be consigned to a ghetto or treated by Jim Crow standards? We begin by pointing out the obvious: conservatives are the majority of Americans, but we are almost invisible in our public and private institutions of education, information, entertainment, and study.
Then demand that those who want our tax dollars, our commercial business, our donations -- anything, really, from us -- treat us fairly, portray us honestly, and invite us into the halls of influence. It is a modest demand, but it is very important. It is a cultural "game-changer," and that, more than anything, is what we need.
Walker nails it here. This is more than just about who wins elections. This polling shows that conservatism is greatly under represented in this country. The implications, for business, media, entertainment, and marketers are incredible.
Let’s take the media first. It’s no secret that liberals make up the bulk of those who choose “journalism” as their career. Even at the so-called “Republican” Fox News, liberals far out number conservatives on the payroll. Everywhere else, conservatives are almost non-existent.
Oh sure, every network and big newspaper has their “token conservative.” They all have their David Brooks or David Frums. But none are actually conservative. Most are “progressives” masquerading as conservatives. Is it any wonder that the newspaper industry is collapsing and the two cable news networks that aren’t Fox are going virtually unwatched?
A smart operator would shake things up and get back to being a news agency rather than a shill for the democrat/communist party. Their profits would soar, and America would be better for it.
The same goes for Hollywood. You ever notice that when Tinseltown makes a movie or television show that is family friendly that folks flock to them in droves? Shows like American Idol and Dancing With The Stars are huge hits because they appeal to a conservative audience. Now that’s not to say every show should be a version of these two, but it shows that Americans enjoy more wholesome fare than what they are generally served up.
Frankly, I enjoy films and shows that are considered “edgy.” There is absolutely a place for these sort of things. Where Hollywood loses me is when they turn otherwise entertaining and delightful movies and TV shows into nothing more than vehicles for liberal propaganda.
One has to look no further than the NBC/Universal to see this on display. Although under new management, NBC/Universal is the poster child for unrelenting propaganda. Owned by General Electric, whose CEO is an adviser to Barack Obama, NBC/Universal has pushed the global warming hoax to the max for years, going so far as having “green weeks” where all of their shows, and entertainment work the global warming shtick into the story line.
NBC uses their long running series Law and Order to bash conservatives, Christians, gun owners, pro-life advocates, and so on. Portraying them as evil and unstable.
It’s easy to see the motivation behind Law and Order. They despise conservatives and use tactics right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules in order to demean and marginalize the object of their scorn. While the far left eat this up, conservatives, by nature, are too timid to act. This needs to change, and change big time.
Of course, for GE, it’s all about the money. NBC pushes “green” as much as possible because GE makes most of the implements of this movement. By hammering viewers constantly with propaganda, they hope to convince people to fall for the global warming scam. Hundreds of billions of dollars are riding on this deal for GE alone. Big Global Warming, if not stopped, will be a trillion dollar industry built on the back of the American people.
Again, smart operators in the entertainment industry would take a pass on all of the propagandizing and get back to just entertaining. The ones who do that will have great success and loyal viewers.
Now this is not to say that TV shows shouldn’t have messages built in. The greatest movie ever made, Casablanca, is one of the most patriotic films ever made. Whether it was intentional or by accident, this movie stirs great emotions, even to this day.
Years ago, television was leading the way with socially relevant programming. TV tackled tough subjects like racism and sexism. Important issues of the day and issues Americans agreed needed addressing. That was responsible and appropriate. What we see now is just pushing an agenda that most of the country doesn’t care for.
Liberals always have to force their agenda on the people, because few would willingly submit.
With all of that said, this has the greatest implications for the Republican Party. The Party is in shambles. For decades the so-called “moderates” have attempted to marginalize conservatives, and conservatism. It’s why they are completely out of power in Washington.
The country club, blue blood, Rockefeller Republicans, the RINOs and DIABLOs (Democrats In All But Name Only) are, and always have been, “progressives.” This is worse than liberal, and frankly all of us are guilty of labeling “progressives” as liberals. The “progressive” movement goes all of the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, a Big Government Statist. “Progressives” totally control the democrat/communist party.
Conservatives, when in power within the Republican Party, have always come out as winners. One has to look no further than the Great Ronald Reagan, who won two unprecedented landslide elections to the presidency, to see that conservatism is attractive to the American people.
We are seeing the same sort of buzz around Sarah Palin, an unapologetic conservative icon. Not since Reagan has a single politician truly aroused the American people.
Oh sure, Barack Obama achieved pop star status, but it was all smoke and mirrors. There was absolutely no substance. In fact, as it is now painfully clear, Obama had to lie about his actual agenda in order to win the election. Obama had to work over time to keep his radical associations from derailing his run for office. Of course, he had plenty of accomplices in the willing media to carry his water and hide the real Barack Obama. Now that he is in, the American people are mortified by the incredible mistake that was made. The American people are horrified now that any pretense that Obama isn’t an out and out communist is gone.
Bounce this off of Sarah Palin’s incredible popularity. Unlike Obama, she actually has decades of experience as an executive level leader. She has an actual public record, going back 20 years, that can be examined by all. She is quick to state her position on any given subject, and all one has to do is look back at her actual record as a public servant to see that she’s pretty consistent in her beliefs and agenda. In other words, if she is saying it now, she has a record of doing before. She doesn’t have to hide behind trickery and the slight of hand. She is what she is.
Sarah doesn’t have to hide from the American people who she is. She is genuine. In this way, Sarah Palin is just like Ronald Reagan: Outspoken and unabashedly conservative. People see this, and respond favorably.
The implications for the Grand Old Party are many, and great, but the biggest is the myth that the GOP needs to “moderate it’s message” to win elections. The current GOP wisdom, or what passes for it, is that we need to pander to the oh so precious “moderate” vote to win. (A whopping 1 percent of the population, according to this poll!) That we need to be a “big tent party” to regain power. The end result is a party that is nothing more than democrat/communist light.
Yes, there are differences in the parties, but on many issues top candidates from our party sure sound a lot like the democrat/communists, and certainly vote with them in their misguided effort to be bipartisan. Our last presidential candidate made one of his center piece talking points the fact that he was known for “reaching across the aisle.” You see where that got us! And I’m not just talking about the election!
Conservatism is the big tent. Always has been. In 1984 Reagan won crushing victories in 49 states by governing as a true conservative in his first term. A feat that hasn’t been, and may never be, duplicated. Running as an unbridled conservative, Reagan “only” won 44 states in 1980.
If you look around at the current political landscape, all of the stars are unabashedly conservative. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, Michael Williams, and Lt Col. Allen West are all solid conservatives and not afraid to say so.
Speaking of Michael Williams:
Williams is the Railroad Commissioner of Texas, a very powerful job, that among other things, regulates energy in Texas. Hmmm.....Sarah Palin had a powerful job in Alaska doing pretty much the same thing!
Williams is wildly popular in Texas, and a shoe-in to take Kay Baily Hutchison’s seat, giving Texas an actual conservative in the Senate for the first time, in some time. Make sure you check out his You Tube channel that is filled with inspiring speeches.
Then you have Lt Colonel Allen West, from Florida, who is running for Congress:
This is the message of conservatism. This is the message of liberty and freedom. This is the message of America. One of the most powerful speeches you’ll see.
The video below is what is considered the best speech given by any leader since Ronald Reagan’s iconic 1964 address to the Republican National Convention. In this speech Sarah Palin solidified her position as the new leader of the conservative movement:
Of course, the original is still the blueprint for greatness in America. I’ve always considered this “must see TV” and go so far as to say that schools need to teach an entire subject based on this speech alone, and no one should graduate high school without a working knowledge of it’s concept.
It’s amazing how much of what Reagan had to say still applies today. It’s chilling what decades of liberal control of our culture has done to us, as a nation. The destructive nature of liberalism is seen all over the fruited plain. It touches our lives daily. It makes our lives just a little less whole, just a little less free.
Few, if any, in Washington get it. Our nation has been taken over by the most radical elements on earth. Vicious elements that have no problem using brute force, as well as trickery and deceit, to see their agenda prevail.
Liberty and freedom are the enemy of the liberal movement. The current communists in Washington are the enemies of liberty and freedom. They only bring tyranny and oppression to the table. The opportunity is ripe for true conservative leaders to step forward and assume the mantle of freedom and liberty, of the American way.
America sorely needs conservatives to answer the call at every level We need conservatives to step up to the plate in local and national races. We need conservatives to seek careers in education, journalism, and the arts. Most importantly we need conservatives to stand up and speak out. You are by far the majority in this nation, it’s about time you realize this, and no longer remain passive, no longer remain silent.
America is a conservative nation and it’s time that our conservative nature is both respected, and celebrated. It’s time for our government to respect the will of the people. It’s our duty to replace those that won’t, with those that will.
“Screw political correctness. Stand up, speak up, and be bold!”
Whew! Man, that Sarah Palin sure has started a real firestorm now that she has attacked the Holy Church of Global Warming! It’s one thing to knock ObamaCare on it’s backside, there are only billions of dollars in payoffs and corruption riding on that deal. But the global warming hustle truly is the whole enchilada!
Not billions, but trillions of dollars will change hands. Government control like you’ve never even dreamed of will come to pass. Taxes will flow into incompetent government hands like never before. Energy will "necessarily skyrocket."
Of course, the real story is all of the money that will be made trading "carbon credits." Al Gore, the Bernie Madoff of the climate change movement, has made hundreds of millions of dollars already off this scam, and stands to make billions.
As I wrote in an earlier piece, Obama and his friends also stand to make out like bandits if cap and trade laws are enacted. The Chicago Climate Exchange is already up and running, and ready to go when all of these insane laws are enacted. Of course, being Chicago, there is absolutely, positively no corruption going on with this deal. Uh huh. There’s this bridge for sale that you just must see if you believe that one!
Just to bring everyone up to speed. If you remember the failed, disgraced Governor from California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, decided to go off on Sarah for her resent stance on the hoax, the greatest lie ever told. Sarah, in what is her usual style, fired right back with this:
Greener Than Thou?
Why is Governor Schwarzenegger pushing for the same sorts of policies in Copenhagen that have helped drive his state into record deficits and unemployment? Perhaps he will recall that I live in our nation’s only Arctic state and that I was among the first governors to create a sub-cabinet to deal specifically with climate change. While I and all Alaskans witness the impacts of changes in weather patterns firsthand, I have repeatedly said that we can’t primarily blame man’s activities for those changes. And while I did look for practical responses to those changes, what I didn’t do was hamstring Alaska’s job creators with burdensome regulations so that I could act "greener than thou" when talking to reporters.
- Sarah Palin
BOOM, taste my nightstick! (What!?! You KNOW we’re gonna go to that one early and often!)
Sarah has what is probably the most reasonable stance there is on the whole notion of climate change. Being someone in a position of power she honestly didn’t have the luxury to just call these liars out and blow them off. And, as someone who spent time as her state’s chief energy and environmental regulator, Sarah knows more than the average politician and humble blogger about the subject.
Climate change may be happening, but the climate on earth has a history of changing. The earth is millions of years old, for goodness sake! We’ve had heat waves and ice ages. All before man even existed! Obviously if the entire earth was covered in ice, and we now have places where it is not, there was some significant warming.
Anyhow, one failed California Governor pwned.
But why did Arnold even bother to speak up? What prompted all of this? Well, as always, follow the money! Our friend and colleague, The Might Serf, went to town on this one and found some fascinating information:
Schwarzenegger vs. Palin: Arnold has no credibility
In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, from the COP15 Climate Summit in Copenhagen, Governor Schwarzenegger took a swipe at Governor Palin. He was asked about her editorial published in the Washington Post last week. He replied:
"You have to ask: what was she trying to accomplish? Is she really interested in this subject or is she interested in her career and in winning the nomination? You have to take all these things with a grain of salt."
Tack on "mind reader" to Arnie's long list professional talents...
Not only is that conjecture on his part, it's also a convenient way to avoid the subject matter and deal with what she said. Arnold deflects the debate, as is common with the global warming faithful and turns it into a 'what's Palin going to do next' moment.
Then he goes on to say:
"We in California have proven it over and over that you can protect the economy, and you can protect the environment." ...
"I don't think you have to choose. I think it is nonsense talk to say let's talk first about the economy."
Either Arnold needs advisors that don't lie to him or he has a serious literacy issue. The last time I checked, the statewide California unemployment rate was at 12.3 percent. With the highest rated area, a town about forty minutes east of where I'm sitting, called El Centro at 22.6 percent.
The report goes on to say:
As a Californian who happens to believe that we are in a current trend of "global cooling" (and yes, lefties that also is a "change" in climate) and also someone forced to live under the green foot of my state government, I got a little more joy from that post than some.
She correctly points out the economic mess California is in and accurately points to one of the main culprits. Arnold keeps talking about these "green jobs" (sounds familiar) but when you look at the numbers I posted above, the small number of positions that open up in the market aren't enough to even put a small dent into those figures.
When my car can run off of algae, we may see a boost in the green economy. Until then, realize what makes an economy work and what doesn't. Like new regulations and laws for instance... Those are instant job killers. If you mandate small businesses that are already stretched too thin, they will lay off workers. They don't have a choice. In business, you do whatever it takes to make it to the next month.
Schwarzenegger is now one of the most outspoken global warming alarmists in public office today. He has dramatically steered this state toward more "green" centered policies, programs, and worst of all, mandates. So did he have an epiphany? Did his wife's family convince him over turkey dinner during the holidays?
Probably not, but I believe Robert Kennedy, his wife's cousin, has everything to do with Arnold's conduct in regards to environmental policies.
Robert Kennedy is not only the governor's relative but he is also one of Arnold's closest advisors, even if he does serve in an unofficial capacity. The two of them can be seen at various press announcements and environmental meetings talking about their great plans to reconstruct California into a "green economy."
There's just one problem with that... A slight conflict of interest arises when one looks over the contracts and plans Californians will be forking money over for in these deals. Robert Kennedy is a Venture Partner and Senior Advisor for a company called VantagePoint Venture Partners. VantagePoint has a multimillion-dollar stake in a company called BrightSource, who produces solar technology. BrightSource has lobbied to build a massive energy project in the Mojave Desert. The project would provide power to 142,000 homes and cost about $2 billion. BrightsSource hopes to build three solar-powered plants situated on land near the Nevada-California borders. As Schwarzenegger told a joint conference of Mexican and U.S. governors, "They’re going to blanket the world with solar panels."
Last year Governor Schwarzenegger also announced a plan to build a massive electric vehicle grid that would cover most of California. At the press conference in San Francisco, Robert Kennedy said "Creating an energy-independent economy is our generation's moon-shot." Whatever "moon-shot" means, I don't know but I don't like it. He also said "For too long we've believed that economy and environment stood at odds with each other. By coming together in this time of turmoil to build a clean transportation infrastructure, this generation will fuel the economic and environmental prosperity of generations to come." Given the fact that Robert attended that conference as a representative of VantagePoint, you better believe they are looking to rake in millions from the deal.
In fact, there is an overwhelming amount of information out there that points to Governor Schwarzenegger's real motives in pushing a "green" economy. It's all about money and it has little to do with the environment. As is usually the case when it comes to the big names in the Climate Change "movement." Just do a quick search into Al Gore's finances to see how philanthropic that guy really is. I'll go out on a limb here and call the man a profiteer.
As far as Governor Palin's motives behind publishing words of warning and giving Obama advice (good advice) on environmental matters... She's trying to help the country. Nothing else. She has no financial ties or personal ties to an industry that stands to heavily profit from the outcome of the Copenhagen Summit. In fact, I've done a lot of research into Governor Palin's background and connections... I've linked her up to the Rotary Club and the NRA. That's it.
By the way, for any of you that still think Arnold resides on the right, politically speaking. The left-wing Annenberg Foundation, helped cover the bill for his trip to Copenhagen through a California State Protocol Foundation grant. I wonder if Robert made the journey too???
Regular readers of this website will recognize the name Annenberg Foundation straightaway. This is the very same Annenberg Foundation that gave the unrepentant murdering domestic terrorist William Ayers, and his good old buddy Barack Obama $60 million dollars for "education," which Ayers and Obama then in turn gave to radical groups like ACORN, you know, "for the children."
Look, Schwarzenegger is married to a "Kennedy." That alone makes him suspect on many levels, but it’s not really all that hard to figure out what is going on here.
Whole lot of corruption goin’ on ‘round here!
Now....As we talked about before, Sarah’s two Op-Eds she wrote for the Washington Post were some of the most read of the entire year. The one she wrote in July on the subject of global warming was the third most read. Predictably, the loons have lost their minds over this! In the world of the democrat/communist, dissenting thought, and differences of opinion, simply are not tolerated, and most certainly not written.
The Washington Post has, of course, been savaged for allowing that woman to sully the pages of their fine paper. The reaction by the crazies has been hilarious, well worth the time to observe. These people’s entire lives are based on lies, and they can’t justify themselves. Liberalism is one of those things that simply cannot withstand the light of day, or hockey moms from Wasilla, Alaska.
So, WaPo trots out their resident hack, Eugene Robinson, to satisfy the moonbats. What could go wrong?
Sarah, obviously loving this little exchange, offered this up for the WaPo, as well as all of her Facebook supporters:
I’d like to thank Eugene Robinson for highlighting Alaska’s achievements on climate change ["Palin’s own ‘Climate- gate,’" op-ed, Dec. 15] and for noting that I’ve "treated the issue as serious, complex, and worthy of urgent attention," while making "any number of pragmatic, reasonable, smart decisions as governor." But he’s wrong to suggest that my views have somehow changed or that now I’ll have to "renounce" my past efforts.
Once again: I don’t deny that climate change is real. In creating a sub-cabinet to deal specifically with the issue, I said that "Alaska’s climate change strategy must be built on sound science and the best available facts and must recognize Alaska’s interest in economic growth and the development of its resources." That goal made sense to me then, and it makes sense to me now.
Mr. Robinson tries to make hay out of the fact that I asked the group to advise me regarding opportunities to participate in "carbon-trading markets." But considering voluntary participation in carbon-trading programs is much different from endorsing the economically disastrous cap-and-tax proposals put forward by Democrats in Washington. Those proposals will burden our job creators and raise energy prices for all of us, and that’s why I oppose them.
As governor of Alaska, I sought common-sense solutions that took real-world costs and benefits into account. That’s what I’m looking for now. But that’s not what’s on the table in Washington or in Copenhagen.
Sarah Palin, Wasilla, Alaska
BOOM, taste my nightstick!
Obviously, Sarah has hoisted this entire bunch of nimrods by their own petards. It’s glorious to watch a politician who will actually fight back when these liars in the media and RINOs attack. I certainly wish President George Bush, an honorable and decent man, would have had ½ the spunk this gal from Alaska has. The entire world might be different today. (sigh)
Of course, what’s a good story about taking the global warming hoaxers to the woodshed without some real meat and potatoes. As you know the Climategate scandal was uncovered in Russia where, ironically, their media is open, and relatively honest.
The long and the short of it is best summarized by the Telegraph’s James Dellingpole: "What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock."
That is, we have yet further evidence that the data is being cooked to make the long-running claim of an increase in global temperatures, and now to diminish the apparent cooling of said temps. As the gang at EU referendum tout, "it is in Soviet Union that the CRU, NOAA, NASA show the greatest warming."
Around the world temperature stations have been widely decommissioned in rural and higher elevations, and we see an over-emphasis on increasingly urbanized (and therefore warmer) stations in the curious selection process as to what temperatures should count, and how much. The latter point references the fact that the data is then adjusted, and we are also seeing an increase in adjusting urbanized (that is, artificially warm) temperature records not down, but upward.
Excerpted in pertinent part, Joe Writes:
On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. …The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. …
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The reason this cherry-picking is relevant — as is the apparent similar gamesmanship being played with other countries examined in recent days including China and New Zealand — because our NOAA compiles the global dataset and the rest work from it. So when CRU claimed that it "lost" its raw data, what they’re saying is the claim to have lost which stations they chose from NOAA’s compilation, making it impossible for those who wish to check it to discern how they got the answer they did.
If it is what it appears to be, and my dozen years working with these people and the past few weeks peeking further inside thanks to ClimateGate tell me that it is, then this is root-cause corruption.
Meanwhile, they are scrambling madly to stitch up an agreement in Copenhagen politically committing the U.S. to the long-desired wealth-transfer. The question is which moves faster, the collapse of the increasingly likely scientific fraud, or the global governance set.
Look, there are a lot of links there, and in incredible amount of information that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that pretty much all of the information used by the global warming hoaxers is not only faulty, but an absolute lie. You simply must take time to investigate them.
These dishonest scientists have cooked the books, withheld and manipulated data to suit their needs, all in an effort to pull off the greatest scam in history. The greatest lie ever told.
This is the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, and UFOs on a global scale! Why? Money, of course. All of these scientists make money off of government and private foundation grants. No crisis, no funding. No funding and you have a lot of "climate scientists" working at McDonald’s asking you if you want fries with that, which is probably where they belong.
And of course, there is power. Look at all of the power that would be wielded if this wasn’t a hoax, and we allowed measures to fight this mythical beast to be put in place. It would be enormous.
The bottom line is this: The climate exists, that’s indisputable. The climate changes, well...duh! Live in Texas and you may see all 4 seasons in one day! That’s real climate change.
But seriously, the climate indeed changes, that’s why the marketing managers over at Big Global Warming, and Big Government, changed the name to "climate change" once it got out that the earth had actually been in a cooling mode since the mid 1990's. Thus Big Climate was born.
There is no credible data though, that man can cause the climate to change. Now, can man screw up his local environment? You bet’cha! For example, the environmental whack jobs have turned America’s breadbasket, the San Joaquin Valley of California into a desert because of a minnow. Millions of acres of land that used to feed the world, literally, is now a dust bowl, all because man has screwed with nature.
The answer to this sort of thing is to allow the states, not the federal government, to regulate the activities of the insane. This also goes for those who pollute, and well, even litter. We all want a clean world, a healthy world. But we also want a world that places a premium on liberty and freedom. A world were we, the individual, are what matters, not Big Government, Big Climate, Or Big Al Gore.
As the wheels start to come off of the global warming hoax wagon, men like Al Gore, who has bored us to death with his inane braying, need to be rounded up and jailed. The same goes for politicians and officials who have pushed these lies on the world.
There is simply no way to measure the amount of blood and treasure that has been lost in pursuit of this hoax. Industries destroyed, jobs lost, and lives destroyed. We could be talking about trillions of dollars, but how can one even measure the destruction these liars have caused?
Well, for now, we have a few brave souls, like Sarah Palin, who has the power of her position as the true American leader, to take these people and their lies on. Thank God for that.
