Frog Foreign Minister: 500 days to avoid ‘climate chaos’

Al Gore and the global cooling/warming bunch told us that the world would be underwater 5 years ago, that what wasn’t underwater would be a desert from all the heat, and millions of hurricanes and tornados caused by all this (non-existent) manmade global warming would destroy any remaining human life. Now the French are using the same fear-mongering, power grabbing wealth redistribution scheme in yet another attempt to gain more power, and redistribute more of our wealth. Now the Frog Foreign Minister is saying we have only “500 days to avoid climate chaos.” So, does that mean the world is going to end in 500 days unless we allow the supposedly enlightened liberal/progressive Marxists to take all of our wealth and run our lives? Wow. Well, if the world is going to end, I guess YOLO (you only live once) applies. Everyone should go pursue their dreams in the 500 days we have left to live. Is your dream to go take a cruise? Too bad. All the cruise ship employees will be off pursuing THEIR dreams as well. Want to take all your money out of the bank and travel? That’s great, but since everyone will be out pursuing their dreams, who will be at restaurants to serve you, who will deliver gas to the gas stations to put in your car, and what good will money be ANYWAY? More importantly, what happens on day five hundred and ONE? That will just be the 1st day of the rest of your life.

And, OBTW, France is hosting the 21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change… wait for it… about 565 days from now. That should tell you something. They just never seem to learn their lesson about making “sky is falling” predictions based on faulty information and implausible theories.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

French Foreign Minister: ‘500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos’

7:29 AM, May 14, 2014 ∙ By JERYL BIER

Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington on Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, “climate chaos.” Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid “climate chaos”[emphasis added]:

▒ Well, I’m very happy to be with John. There is no week without a phone call or a visit between John and myself, and we have on the agenda many items, many issues – Iran, because negotiations are resuming today; the question of Syria, and we shall meet next Thursday in London together; Ukraine as well; and very important issues, issue of climate change, climate chaos. And we have – as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter. ▒

It is unclear what the foreign minister had in mind with the 500 days. However, France is scheduled to host the “21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change” in December 2015, about 565 days from now.

LINK to article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos_792736.html

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

The global warming, er, global cooling, uh, climate change cover up continues.

REAL science is supposed to be open, seeking validation of the claimed results by having other scientists attempt to replicate them. Hiding and destroying data isn’t “science.” It’s an attempt to hide an agenda behind a thin veneer of “science.”

The other thing you hear from the global warming crowd in an attempt to silence dissent is that global warming is “settled science.”  Again, REAL science is NEVER settled.  It is always continually reexamined and reexplored as new ideas and questions arise, and as new technologies develop.  Only the dishonest, and intellectually feeble accept the drivel about “settled science.”  If science were “settled,” America wouldn’t have been settled because the world was flat and America just didn’t exist.  Man would never have flown airplanes, much less have broken the “sound barrier.”  Remember?  It was accepted that the sound barrier was an invisible wall that would smash any airplane that exceeded that speed.  What about going to the moon?  Never would have happened.  Modern health care?  We would still be “bleeding” people to cure them.  No, scratch that.  As misguided as that was, even that was a fledgling result of the scientific method. 

The global warming history of hiding, lying, and cheating is just too long to ignore. None of the “scientists” will OPENLY have their data and results reviewed, especially by skeptics.  Proponents, especially the godfather of global warming Al Gore, will NOT debate ANYONE, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE on the subject.  If you disagree with him, you are just a heretic and must be silenced or ignored. 

Until you are willing to have your theories INDEPENDENTLY and OPENLY verified and repeated, GLOBAL WARMING IS BUSTED.
+

---

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Top 10 Liberal Hit Jobs

This is the only way liberals can win, because they can’t win on the issues without lying.

---

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47474

by Human Events
11/12/2011

When liberals are losing a political issue, they won’t hesitate to smear their opponents, even if the attacks are unfounded.  Here are the Top 10 Liberal Hit Jobs:

1.  Robert Bork​:  When President Reagan​ nominated Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy led the charge to defeat the brilliant jurist by any means necessary.  Kennedy went to the Senate floor with this fanciful smear:  “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government.”

2.  Sarah Palin:  The Left is so obsessed with the former Alaska governor that a new disorder—the Palin Derangement Syndrome—has been termed.  While the media forgot to vet the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, news organizations sent teams of reporters to Alaska when e-mails from her administration were released years after Palin’s term was over.  From questioning her child’s birth to moving in next door in Wasilla, the liberal mainstream gets frenzied at the mere mention of her name.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Are you global warming believers getting it yet? All of your prominent “scientists” caught manufacturing and/or covering up data again, and again, and data that repeatedly blows gaping holes in your argument for man-caused global warming/climate change? It’s over already. It was a lie from the beginning. Drop it.

OBTW, did you see Al Gore’s meltdown the other day about people who disagree with him? http://www.mediaite.com/online/al-gore-delivers-angry-rant-against-anti-global-warming-pseudo-scientist-bllshit/Amusing, and at the same time pathetic.
+

---

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

By James Taylor | Forbes – Wed, Jul 27, 2011

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Al Gore’s $8.875 Million House of Carbon

Remember all that noise Al Gore made about oceans rising and cities being flooded because of “man-caused global warming?” Well, Mr. Hypocricy, Al Gore doesn’t seem to be too worried about that anymore. He bought a nearly $9 million house RIGHT NEXT TO THE OCEAN. Where did all that money come from? Follow the money,… and you’ll see that global warming really is just a hoax.

---

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/nswift/al-gores-8875-million-house-of-carbon

By Nan Swift on Apr 30, 2010

Two days ago the LA Times reported that Al Gore has picked up a pricey new Italian-style villa with “ocean view, fountains, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms” all for a mere $8,875,000.

It always seems a little surprising that this self-styled eco-warrior isn’t living in a tree with the rest of his disciples, but it shouldn’t be all that shocking because he can definitely spare the change he shelled out for the Montecito-area cottage.

Of course the most famous public figure with deep financial ties to the climate change money machine is Al Gore. During the last ten years, he has increased his personal fortune a hundredfold, from “between $1 million and $2 milion” (from his 2000 Presidential candidacy disclosures) to over $100 million in 2007. Gore and former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood founded Generation Investment Management (GIM), a venture capital firm that invests in “green” businesses. GIM is a member of the Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX) which is the commodity trading market created to facilitate the sale of carbon credits.

Money machine? The blog quoted above points to a good introduction:

If you accept that CO2 is the problem, then steps need to be taken to reduce CO2 emissions, which many developed countries have attempted using “cap and trade” schemes. In cap and trade, you use the law to require companies in developed countries to reduce their CO2 emissions, or to buy carbon offsets if they can’t.

Where do carbon offsets come from? Simply enough, some authority must certify that someone else has either reduced their CO2 output, or has agreed not to do something that would increase CO2 output they would otherwise have done. For every ton of CO2 you don’t emit, you get a certificate that you can sell on the carbon market to someone who needs permission — an indulgence — allowing them to emit a ton of CO2.

But what about the details? Who has the authority to certify? And how do you measure CO2 not emitted? The opportunities for graft are vast. There isn’t much that is easier than not building a facility that therefore doesn’t emit CO2. Convince an inspector that you really would have built that facility, or simply that you built a modern efficient plant where you might otherwise have built a dirty inefficient one, and you’re entitled to a credit.

Once you have the carbon credit you need to sell it, which means there must be a market — a role filled in part by the Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX).

Glenn Beck does an excellent job of trying to unpack the growing carbon credit market/jungle below:

It’s difficult to dismiss this as a lot of tinfoil hat ranting – people have been picking up on this in bits and pieces over a long time period now, even Rolling Stone did a piece on this last July!  The Washington Examiner also has more information on the Fannie Mae cap and trade connection here.

Thanks to the elaborate “cash web” Gore and his cohorts have put together, he can not only afford his new digs, he can afford the carbon offsets from such an elaborate, energy sucking abode.  Unless, of course, he can just give them to himself?  Perhaps for an early birthday present.

On the other hand, even if he did buy the offsets to counter the earth abuse the Montecito pad is committing, it probably wouldn’t do much good.  The Christian Science Monitor has an indepth investigative report on the extreme no good at all and, in fact, extreme fraud some carbon offset outfits are accomplishing.

An investigation by The Christian Science Monitor and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting has found that individuals and businesses who are feeding a $700 million global market in offsets are often buying vague promises instead of the reductions in greenhouse gases they expect.

They are buying into projects that are never completed, or paying for ones that would have been done anyhow, the investigation found. Their purchases are feeding middlemen and promoters seeking profits from green schemes that range from selling protection for existing trees to the promise of planting new ones that never thrive. In some cases, the offsets have consequences that their purchasers never foresaw, such as erecting windmills that force poor people off their farms.

Carbon offsets are the environmental equivalent of financial derivatives: complex, unregulated, unchecked and – in many cases – not worth their price.

And often, those who get the “green credits” thinking their own carbon emissions have been offset, are fooled.

As we’ve pointed out in the newly revamped Cap and Trade online war room, government wants us to have a lot of economic pain for what is clearly no ecological pay off. The entire system is barely afloat under the weight of fraud, back room deals, and the type of cronyism that would make Boss Tweed proud.  And for some reason we’re supposed to believe that the government is some how more pure and will pull this off better?

That’s a big pill to swallow.

It’s good that the cap and trade gambit is being exposed, but the dots are purposefully hard to connect and the kind of serious attention that is required to bring this kind of information to the forefront of the public conscience is seriously lacking.  That’s why it is easy for Kerrry, Graham, and Lieberman to get away with saying their new bill isn’t cap and trade, but caps and all this other junk that people accept without questioning.  It’s all very complex and shady – it would take serious unpacking to discern what is really going on and who is getting rich off the taxpayers – because someone always is.

For all those reasons and more, it’s essential that we take action now before the bill that was dead, then wasn’t, comes back for more.

It’s also essential that citizens stand up for themselves, do some serious investigating, and demand answers.  That’s what the Tennesse Center for Policy Research did when they exposed that Al Gore’s electricity bill was 20X the national average in 2007.  But don’t worry, he can afford it.

---

It Doesn’t Matter What You Do, You Just Caused Global Warming

You see, Mr. Anderson?  This is the ridiculous mentality of the hardcore manmade global warming crowd.  They blame global warming for everything under the sun, and partly because of that destroy their credibility.  Global warming caused time to pass and the sun to rise.  It caused the stars to shine in the night sky.  Global warming causes flatulence in cows, fish, elk, moose, bears, and your wife when she rips one in bed.  People aren’t gay or straight because of choice or genetics, but because of global warming.  Proponents of manmade global warming say that CO₂ caused the earth to both warm AND cool.  Does anyone else see a problem with this logic?

If flawed logic weren’t enough to make you doubt the veracity of the global warming argument, then the chief purveyor of the myth admitting he has no data to support any of what he has published, and that they were wrong the Himalayan glaciers melting (they traced the data for that to a non-scientific magazine article) should seal the deal for you.

I won’t say definitively that global warming isn’t at least a possibility, but it’s not likely, and there is NO conclusive evidence that man has any impact whatsoever on global temperatures.  As the author of the article below says, “Sloppy research, manipulated data and propagandizing scientists don’t disprove global warming theory. They just discredit those who support it.”

---

http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2010/20100215103159.aspx

Blizzards only the latest of hundreds of claims left uses to argue climate heating up while their science claims go into deep freeze.

By Dan Gainor
The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow
Business & Media Institute
2/15/2010 10:37:08 AM

This column isn’t just brought to you by global warming. It was caused by global warming.

Why not? Everything else is. For years, Americans have been told global warming causes pretty much everything. Al Gore, the patron saint of all things toasty, blamed Hurricane Katrina on global warming. Lefty actor Danny Glover blamed it for the Haitian earthquake in January. After lamenting the failure of the Copenhagen climate conference, Glover talked about the earthquake and said “this is what happens.” Climate: the ultimate “Lethal Weapon.”

He’s not even an outlier. Joseph Romm, a former Clinton official, raised the issue of global warming after the Minnesota bridge collapse of 2007. Go to Dr. John Brignell’s site Numberwatch.co.uk and you’ll find at least 600 random things from sharks moving north to a rise in allergies to a rise in HIV – all blamed on global warming.

Now, the mid-Atlantic gets pounded by consecutive blizzards – five feet of snow in areas I shoveled. That led to some natural mockery. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said on Twitter: “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’” Grandchildren of Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., put the snow to good use. They built an igloo on the National Mall, naming it “Al Gore’s New Home.”

Conservatives also made fun of global warming alarmist Robert Kennedy Jr. who just a year and a half before had complained about warming around D.C. and “today’s anemic winters.” Kennedy didn’t realize his heart-felt plea would be used as an icebreaker against global warming alarmism, not for it.

The liberal response was a blizzard of BS. First they were appalled. Once again, evil conservatives made them look bad. Liberals then tried another tack. Weather wasn’t climate, they bellowed, clueless that conservatives had been making that very point all along.

But liberals weren’t done. Next they said, while weather wasn’t climate, the blizzards were, drum roll please, because of global warming. On Valentine’s Day, The Washington Post ran its latest impassioned pro-alarmist opinion piece. This one was written by Bill McKibben, another lefty making a career out of climate scare tactics.

McKibben, a carbon dioxide warrior and co-founder of the group 350.org, tried to dig out his flailing comrades. “Instead, the weird and disruptive weather patterns around the world are pretty much exactly what you’d expect as the planet warms,” he wrote.

One-time rational human turned MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan told viewers the same thing Feb. 9. “Here’s the problem – these ‘snowpocalypses’ that have been going through D.C. and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming.”

Meanwhile, the case for such claims was falling faster than the Washington snow. Britain’s Daily Mail reported that Climate Gate villain Dr. Phil Jones had undermined his own work in a new BBC interview.

According to the Feb. 14 article, Jones admitted his recordkeeping was “not as good as it should be” and that he might have misplaced a lot of the data integral to the famous hockey stick graph. That graph, a bulwark of climate alarmism, claimed to show the earth had been warming in an unprecedented way for many years.

Now Jones wasn’t sure whether the Medieval Warming Period was warmer or not and, even more, he admitted “that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.’”

So he owned up that he might have been wrong about history.  He said the earth wasn’t warming. And he said he doesn’t have data to back up his prior claims. That is the academic equivalent of the dog ate my homework. I’m surprised he didn’t blame his lost data on global warming. And on his advice we’re going to spend trillions of dollars remaking the world?

This came on the heels of Climate Gate and the embarrassment of the UN climate panel that admitted it was entirely wrong about Himalayan glaciers melting. And the Feb. 15 Washington Post pointed out even more errors and sloppy work in the UN report. Desperate scientists have played 6.7 billion people for fools. Maybe the earth is warming. Maybe it isn’t. That’s not science. That’s the toss of a coin. Sloppy research, manipulated data and propagandizing scientists don’t disprove global warming theory. They just discredit those who support it.

Yet, even now, President Obama and congressional Democrats are trying to limit U.S. emissions based on this very “science.” If we let them, they’ll wreck our economy. At least then we’ll be sure global warming caused something – the decline of the United States.

Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. His column appears each week on The Fox Forum and he can be seen on Foxnews.com’s “Strategy Room.” He can also be contacted on FaceBook and Twitter as dangainor.

---

Al Gore and Climate Communists: Wrong Again

History has shown that CO2 doesn’t CAUSE warming, but rises AFTER warming occurs.  As the East Anglia CRU documents, and data from several other scientific sources indicates, the PRIMARY cause of global warming OR cooling is the level of solar activity.

Here’s the punch line from the article below.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

---

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

---

Al Gore’s Logical Fallacies of Global Warming

It’s funny how a divinity school drop-out is viewed by a large (and deceived) segment of society as being able to predict what will happen to God’s creation.

There are so many holes in Al Gore’s arguments that his global warming boat is now finally starting to sink.  It is taking on water at an even faster rate with the exposure of the fraud perpetrated by the East Anglia crowd (who are the primary providers of “data” to the UN’s IPCC, who the uninformed have viewed as an authority on global warming UNTIL NOW).

Mr. McDurmon does a passable job of explaining how just the LOGICAL errors in Gore’s “reasoning” shoot down his own arguments.  The documented evidence McDurmon provides (supported authoritatively by many, more credible scientists than those proponents of “global warming”) also highlights the logical AND scientific fallacies of the global warming argument.

As Mr. McDurmon sums up, “global warming”/climate change is simply a CONVENIENT LIE to push an agenda of CONTROL over populations and money.  IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SAVING THE PLANET.

---

http://www.americanvision.org/print/printpage.php

Logical Fallacies of Global Warming

by Joel McDurmon, Dec 18, 2009

Excerpts from Biblical Logic: In Theory and Practice

One of the “Fallacies of Cause” I address in my book Biblical Logic is one that confuses simultaneity for causation. In other words, just because two things occur at or near the same time, someone may fallaciously assume that one caused the other. We call this Cum Hoc Propter Hoc, which is Latin for “With this, because of this.” The same exposure of folly as the After This Fallacy applies here to the With This Fallacy: a myriad of possible causes exist—many we may not even see or know of—for every given occurrence. This creates a high probability for false causes, even for events that seem to concur in time. Correlation in time cannot guarantee a causal link.

Al Gore’s False Cause

One of the concerning examples I use comes from Al Gore’s crusade against global warming. In his video An Inconvenient Truth, he uses correlational data to back his points: “If you look at a thousand years worth of temperature, and compare it to a thousand years of CO2, you can see how well they fit together.” He admits that the relationship between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature is very complicated, but states that the most important relationship is this: “when there is more Carbon Dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.” Gore, famously now, presents pictures of melted glaciers and icecaps, along with warnings of increases in hurricanes and storms, flooded port cities due to rising ocean levels, and other climate catastrophes should we not immediately begin to reduce carbon emissions and our use of hydrocarbons (a scare-tactic, or Appeal to Fear). More importantly, he correlates modern human activity with the increase in carbon dioxide levels, implying that since humans cause global warming we must take drastic measures to reduce it.

Of course, all of this abuses the “With This” correlational fallacy many times over. To begin with, CO2 is not the primary cause of the “greenhouse effect” that results in higher temperatures. At least two other factors greatly outweigh it: solar activity and another more important greenhouse gas, water vapor. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine argues in a detailed paper, “Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity … by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H₂O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood.”[1] Changes in solar radiation correlate more closely and for a longer period of history with temperature changes than do Gore’s graphs of CO2. As well, “While major greenhouse gas H₂O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO₂ have little effect.”[2]

On top of this, while global temperatures have indeed risen in recent decades, proponents of Gore’s scare-tactics rarely mention that temperatures for centuries prior cooled considerably. The current rise merely corrects the previous “Little Ice Age.” The warming trend has occurred for much longer than Gore emphasizes, and has created effects that belie more of his claims:

[M]easurements show that the trend of 7 inches per century increase in sea level and the shortening trend in average glacier length both began a century before 1940, yet 84% of total annual human hydrocarbon use occurred only after 1940. Moreover, neither of these trends has accelerated during the period between 1940 and 2007, while hydrocarbon use increased 6 fold.[3]

This scientific paper, which stands behind a petition signed by over 31,000 American scientists, concludes,

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperature, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO₂, CH₄, or other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed.[5]

So it seems that—despite Al Gore’s claims about having a “scientific consensus” (a fallacious Appeal to Authority)—other obvious, more relevant, and powerful causes exist to explain global temperature changes other than those claimed by Al Gore (as well as the United Nations and those who follow it). Al’s An Inconvenient Truth contains little more than one big craftily presented With This Because of This Fallacy (packaged with a few other fallacies).

So why would Gore and others present the story this way? Note how he and other liberals intend to “solve” the problem: they propose a tax on carbon emissions as well as a global system of “cap-and-trade” on hydrocarbon usage. In plain language, these measures amount to a redistribution of wealth where more prosperous people and nations that use more fuel end up paying tons of money to third-world nations that do not. “Global Warming” simply acts as a mask and a fear factor for advancing the leftist political agenda, and increasing global government control of free and prosperous nations like the United States. Global warming is not an “inconvenient truth,” it is a convenient lie.[5]

Al Gore’s Slippery Slope

The Fallacy of Slippery Slope involves the claim that if a particular action is taken it will inevitably lead to another particular and undesirable event, or series of events. The idea imagines, for example, that a person who takes a first step onto a steep slope will slide all the way to the bottom. Therefore, it argues, it is better to avoid that first step altogether. But this assumes a number of things (keeping with the metaphor): 1) that the slope actually exists; 2) that the slope is steep enough to cause someone to slip; 3) that the person stepping has not prepared some means of adequate footing, for example, special boots or ropes; and 4) that the slope actually leads exactly where the arguer claims it does. All of these assumptions, and probably more, indicate that Slippery Slope thinking is fallacious without lots of supporting qualifications.

Al Gore creates a gross Slippery Slope argument with his claims about increasing greenhouse gases in the future. The now-debunked graph that his film An Inconvenient Truth popularized earned the nickname “the hockey stick” because it shows only mild fluctuations in the amount of CO2 until the last few decades, and then drastically shoots upward—thus forming the shape of a hockey stick. Even if his graph represented the data accurately (it does not), this would still not warrant the conclusion that Gore draws from it. In order to make his rhetorical point he mounts a man-lift and elevates it several feet high. He then points to the top of a big screen where the spike on his graph goes “off the charts.” Such is the radical future we face if we do not cut CO2 emission!

Of course this unwarranted extrapolation commits classically fallacious Slippery Slope thinking. Anyone could make any kind of radical prediction like this by simply extending the last upswing or down-tick of data indefinitely. The real question remains, “Is such an extrapolation warranted?” (Remember the books DOW 30,000, DOW 36,000, and DOW 40,000, all predicting wild extrapolations for the stock market?) And still then, even if the data warrants such a speculation, it cannot prove such a speculative event will come to pass, simply because many factors could yet affect the future.

Peter corrected a reverse application of “Slippery Slope to doomsday” thinking in his day. Instead, God’s judgment did loom very near on the Jewish people as Jesus had predicted. Critics of the promised return of Christ argued that since Christ had not yet returned for sometime (probably nearing 40 years) therefore the promise was a hoax and Christ would never return. Peter relates their fallacy:

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation” (2 Pet. 3:3–4).

Peter corrects their fallacy by reminding them who actually controls the slope of history:

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:8–9).

Like so many fallacies that people commit, the remedy lies in the fact that God reigns supreme, and His Word shall come to pass. Any human reasoning that deviates from this standard risks all manner of fallacy. Al Gore may have learned that had he not quit divinity school. Instead, he is abusing human reason hoping to further break God’s law: to steal from some nations and give to others. At least it’s easy to see through.

Endnotes:

[1] Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12:3 (Fall 2007):79. Available at http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf (accessed February 11, 2009).
[2] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 79.
[3] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 82. Emphasis mine.
[4] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 89.
[5] See also Christopher C. Horner, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007).

---

Al Gore Lies about the Global Warming Lies

…or as the no-talent anus clown Al Franken would say, “Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them).”

Al “I created the internet” Gore can’t claim a slip of the tongue when he said the East Anglia CRU e-mails were 10 years old.  He didn’t merely say it once, but THREE (3) times.  That is just Al doing a poor job of applying the liberal rule of thumb that if you repeat something enough times, it becomes true.

You global warming wealth redistributors have been caught in the lie that you constructed to grab power and take money.  Now you don’t know what to do.  Denying that your lies have been exposed as Obama and many others are doing doesn’t make the truth go away.

---

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record

Andrew Bolt

Wednesday, December 09, 2009 at 06:54pm

Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

In fact, thrice denied:

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 – just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?

(Thanks to readers Sinclair and Peter.)

UPDATE

Reader Barry:

Actually the e-mail archives are named by Unix timestamp, ranging from Thu, 07 Mar 1996 14:41:07 GMT through to Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:44 GMT. This is a strong indicator they are extracted from an enterprise archive, probably by the FOIA Compliance Officer and not hacked from individual’s workstations.

---

Al Gore: The Milli Vanilli of the Scientific Community

Do any of you remember the music act Milli Vanilli from the late 80’s and early 90’s?  Remember how they won a Grammy for their music but then had it revoked because they were found to lip-syncing?  They were phonies garnering recognition for something they didn’t do.

Now we have a modern parallel.  We have a person who claims to be an expert on climate science who has no actual education or experience in the field.  This person has been internationally recognized for his work in propagating what has been proven to be a lie.  Now that man-made climate change has been proven to be a hoax, the elitists on the left want their awards back.  Who is this hoaxter?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Milli Vanilli of the scientific world, Al Gore.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/president/ci.Hollywood+Conservatives+Say+Gore+Should+Lose+Oscar+Over+Climate-Gate.opinionPrint

– FOXNews.com
– December 04, 2009

Hollywood Conservatives Say Gore Should Lose Oscar Over Climate-Gate

Two conservative screenwriters say Al Gore should be stripped of his Oscar in light of the global warming questions raised by leaked e-mails out of a British research center.

//

Just days ahead of an international climate change conference, global warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore has been hit by an inconvenient scandal — one that’s reverberated all the way back to Hollywood.

Two conservative screenwriters say Gore should be stripped of his Oscar in light of the global warming questions raised by leaked e-mails out of a British research center.  (Amen.)

The former vice president earned the Oscar in 2007 for his climate change manifesto “An Inconvenient Truth.” He later went on to earn a Nobel Peace Prize and become one of the world’s leading authorities on global warming. (Let’s take back his “Peace” Prize, and also get Jimmy Carter’s while we’re at it.)

But Roger Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, both members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, put out a statement Thursday calling for the Academy to take it all back in light of the controversy skeptics have dubbed Climate-Gate.

“I personally call for the Academy to rescind this Oscar,” Simon said. “In the history of the Academy … not to my knowledge has an Oscar ever been rescinded. … I think they should rescind this one.”

Though their demand will almost certainly not be met, it marks the latest effort by conservatives to draw attention to the controversy in the run-up to an international climate change conference next week in Copenhagen — where Gore just canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are demanding hearings on the topic, after leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit showed scientists appearing to discuss manipulating climate change data.

Simon is the founder of Pajamas Media, whose Web site posted the Gore criticism Thursday. Chetwynd is a screenwriter.

The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group. The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.  (Yeah.  Right.)

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of “all the events going on with the summit.” Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that’s when the ministerial segment starts.

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it’s a “great disappointment” that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.

---

Obama’s Narcissistic Rage

Talk about the nuts running the asylum…  People suffering this severely from serious psychosis need to be institutionalized, not be put in charge.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/narcissistic_rage_in_the_white_1.html

Return to the Article

October 28, 2009

Narcissistic Rage in the White House

By James Lewis

The term “narcissistic rage” gets 26,000 citations in Google Scholar. It is a common feature of extreme or pathological narcissism.

While psychiatrists often say they can’t do long-distance diagnosis, it really isn’t that hard if you have a lot of information about a person and can watch how he operates from day to day. Intelligence agencies around the world have psychiatric staffs for exactly that purpose.

While most people are pretty hard to predict, extreme narcissists are comparatively simple. They constantly hunger for ego gratification (sounds like a certain always-in-the-spotlight president I know), they are immature (constantly lashing out at those who disagree with him), constantly need to demonstrate their own superiority (or perceived superiority), often need endless sexual conquests (like Bill Clinton), are manipulative (right again), constant liars (NAILED IT!), are completely cold about the human beings they harm (like John Edwards), and they deal with frustration by uncontrollable fits of rage.  (the classic clinical description of “pathological narcissism” describes Barack Hussein Obama to a T)

I think that’s what we saw last week with the White House lashing out at Fox News.

According to the New York Times,

“Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of columnists and commentators, including Rachel S. Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times,

President Obama himself gave vent to sentiments about the (Fox) network, according to people briefed on the conversation… ” (italics added).  (“Waaahhh, waaahhh, waaahhh!  Those mean people disagree with me!  I’m going to beat them up!)

So Obama didn’t even keep this thing on background. He allowed himself to be quoted in his favorite rag, the New York Times. Dowd, Maddow, Herbert, and Rich did their part by going into attack-dog mode against conservatives. They know exactly what Obama needs and wants, and to keep in good stead with this White House, they feed that hungry ego with the most outrageous flattery and imitation.

It is a perfect symbiosis. Obama is easy to manipulate, and liberal commentators are used to demonize the opposition. They’ve all been raised on Rules for Radicals.

Obama’s thin skin is shared by his coterie. US News and World Report wrote:

Team Obama was pushed over the brink by a growing list of what it considered outrageous anti-Obama conduct by Fox that showed no sign of stopping. Obama’s advisers say that they seethed while Fox commentators used their shows to encourage protests against Obama’s healthcare proposals last summer. Team Obama fumed as Fox personalities tried to pressure some controversial Obama advisers to resign.

White House officials say that Fox has continued to stir the pot against Obama in a regular pattern — raising a criticism, having Republican congressional leaders comment on it, and then using those comments to keep the criticism alive.  (In other words, Fox News was doing EXACTLY what journalists are supposed to do.  They are supposed to be skeptical, supposed to question EVERYONE, and supposed to verify EVERYTHING.)

A break point came when Fox tried to create the impression that angry anti-Obama protesters at congressional town hall meetings last summer signaled that Obama’s healthcare proposals were dying, a story line that other news organization picked up. White House officials say this was untrue, that those proposals were not dying at all.

Another break point came when Fox commentator Chris Wallace called White House officials “crybabies.” A senior Obama adviser tells U.S. News that White House staffers developed “a growing realization” that the president would never get a fair shake from Fox.  (To Obama and his zOmbies, it’s only fair if it’s what Obama thinks and wants you to say.)

Notice the need to have total obedience from the whole press. Fox News is a small part of the total media, but they’ve driven the Obees into a fit. Of course, every single president in American history has been targeted by the media, and generally much, much worse than Obama has. Take George W. Bush, for example. (But I forgot…Bush was Evil, and Obama is Good.  Well, that explains it.)

Last week’s coordinated Obama attack on Fox News made no PR sense. Fox increased its viewership by 10%. Obama lost points in the polls; you can give the American people only so many demonstrations of the Chicago Way before they figure out you aren’t the Great Healer after all.

Obama is far and away the biggest and most naïve narcissist in living memory to occupy the White House. He hasn’t been smoothed and polished by years of deal-making in the Senate like LBJ. The outrage looks like it was just an uncontrollable expression of who Obama and his crew are. If we get more of this, Obama’s carefully buffed sheen will be permanently damaged for the saner 70% of the population. The other 30% will always fall for him anyway.

Pathological narcissism is a reflection of weakness, not strength. Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics points out how much of it has been happening in less than a year of this administration, including months of a honeymoon period. Obama constantly uses wild and irresponsible accusations against his perceived enemies. Bevan writes:

In the first nine months in office President Obama and/or members of his administration have accused doctors of performing unnecessary medical procedures for profit; demonized bond holders as ‘speculators’; produced a report suggesting military veterans are prone to becoming right wing extremists; attacked insurance companies and threatened them with legislative retribution; ridiculed talk show hosts and political commentators by name from the White House podium; dismissed and demeaned protesters and town hall attendees as either unauthentic or fringe characters; maligned a white police officer for arresting a black man without knowing the facts of the case; launched an orchestrated campaign to marginalize the country’s biggest pro-business group; and publicly declared war on a news organization.

When Obama runs into brick walls, he seems to reflexively go into a state of rage. Bill Clinton was the same way, and so was LBJ. But Clinton and LBJ had a lot of time to learn to moderate their own worst instincts. The best thing that ever happened to Bill Clinton as president was the election of the Gingrich Congress in 1994, which forced him to deal with reality. Jimmy Carter has been on a constant narcissistic revenge campaign since he lost to Ronald Reagan and never got a second term. It explains a lot about Jimmy’s amazing destructiveness against his favorite whipping boy, Israel.

The same thing will happen to Obama if and when he loses the election in 2012. Since narcissists in power keep people around them in a constant state of fear — everybody gets targeted and feels insecure — you can expect a ton of dirty tricks in elections to come. But then Democrats constantly use dirty tricks.

I fear two things with Obama. One is if the GOP fails to elect a House majority in 2010 to keep Obama within the bounds of sanity. A GOP majority is essential for the safety of the country and the world. But even if Obama is defeated in 2012, he will just turn into an angrier version of Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. He will haunt the political future of this country as long as he is alive, because that famished ego never gets enough. Malignant narcissism often gets worse over time. And on the Left and among blacks, Obama will still have love and adoration enough to keep him supplied. He is an easy target for flattery by the Saudis, even the Iranians — in fact, by all the real enemies we have.

So even if the voters throw out this very dangerous cult-like administration, you can expect Obama to be popping up in our politics for years to come. He will haunt the Democrats, which might be a good thing. But he will haunt the United States as well, even if he is defeated in 2012.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/narcissistic_rage_in_the_white_1.html at October 30, 2009 – 03:02:26 PM EDT

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Alfred Nobel’s Peace Prize Defiled

Are you KIDDING me?  Are you @#$%&*! KIDDING me?!?!  The Nobel Peace Prize?  For WHAT?  The only thing Comrade Chairman Maobama has done is run around the world telling everyone how bad America is.  We have finally stripped away any pretense of what it actually takes to win the prize these days.  It was questionable when Jimmuh Cahtuh won it.  It was an absolute joke when Al Gore won it for presenting a scientific HOAX.  Now you have an American president doing nothing but playing into the hands of the America-haters around the world.  As the second article indicates, not everyone is thrilled about Obama’s “peace” prize.  Obama’s buddies, the Taliban, were expecting “hope and change.”  They’re not too thrilled with Obama’s resemblance to G.W. Bush when it comes to Afghanistan.  I’m sure Obama is more upset over the disapproval of the Taliban than he is over the prospect of Iran nuking Israel off the map.

Alfred Nobel is turning over in his grave at how his legacy has been distorted.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/obama-and-the-nobel-peace-prize/?pagemode=print

October 9, 2009, 8:10 am <!– — Updated: 8:10 am –>

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

By Nicholas Kristof

So what do you think of President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize? I’m nonplussed — I admire his efforts toward Middle East peace, but the prize still seems very premature. What has he done?

Obama’s work on the Middle East, mostly through Senator Mitchell’s efforts, are sensible but haven’t produced any results yet. They certainly don’t match the intensive efforts that Bill Clinton made with his Middle East peace negotiations in the fall of 2000. Likewise, Obama’s efforts on nuclear non-proliferation are important, but they are purely an aspiration. All the hard work is yet to come — and trying to renegotiate the NPT will be very hard indeed.

In other areas, Obama has done little. He’s been largely absent on Sudan, Congo, Burma and global poverty and health issues, and doesn’t even have a USAID administrator. I think he has the right instincts on these issues and expect him to get engaged, but shouldn’t the Nobel Peace Prize have a higher bar than high expectations? Especially when there are so many people who have worked for years and years on the front lines, often in dangerous situations, to make a difference to the most voiceless people of the world? I think of Dr. Denis Mukwege at the Panzi Hospital in eastern Congo, or Jo and Lyn Lusi at the Heal Africa Hospital also in eastern Congo, or Greg Mortenson traipsing all over Pakistan and Afghanistan to build schools, or Dr. Catherine Hamlin working for half a century to fight obstetric fistula and maternal mortality in Ethiopia, or so many others. In the light of that competition, it seems to me that it might have made sense to wait and give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in his eighth year in office, after he has actually made peace somewhere.

In any case, I do hope that the Prize gives Obama a bit more political capital in his Middle East peace efforts, and a bit more confidence and willingness to bang heads there when necessary.

What do you think of Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, and who would have been your choice?

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jK0P-gC2lzZTYcqeKlXBO0XVJ3mA

Taliban condemns Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

By Waheedullah Massoud (AFP) – 1 hour ago

KABUL — The Taliban Friday condemned Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, saying rather than bring peace to Afghanistan he had boosted troop numbers and continued the aggressive policies of his predecessor.

“We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP.

“We condemn the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama,” he said by telephone from an undisclosed location.

“When Obama was elected president, we were hopeful he would keep his promise to bring change. But he brought no change, he has continued the same old strategy as (President George W.) Bush.

“He reinforces the war in Afghanistan, he sent more troops to Afghanistan and is considering sending yet more. He has shed Afghan blood and he continues to bleed Afghans and to boost the war here,” he said.

Obama won the award less than a year after he took office with the jury hailing his “extraordinary” diplomatic efforts. … (Complete article HERE)

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Biden displaces Gore for Top Spot on “Dumbest VP Ever” List

How may people and groups can Biden piss off with one statement?  Well, with this one I would start the list with

• His family
• Feminists
  
• The French
• All non-Ukrainian women

On a recent visit to the Ukrain Joe’s foot-in-mouth disease was acting up again when he said the following:

“I cannot believe that a Frenchman visiting Kiev went back home and told his colleagues he discovered something and didn’t say he discovered the most beautiful women in the world. That’s my observation.”-Vice President Joe Biden

Obama is doing a pretty good job embarassing America on his own.  He doesn’t need, and I would venture a guess that he doesn’t want any help from jumpin’ Joe Biden.  What a pair of NTAC’s (No Talent A.. Clowns).

Your Stupidity and Ignorance Hurts More People Than Just Yourself

The liberal democrats just keep spreading the lies and spreading fear saying “the evil republicans are going to take away your social security.”  Ignoring for a moment the fact that American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the retirement of others, as the evidence clearly shows, it is the guilty dog democrats barking first trying to deflect the attention away from themselves on this (and many other) topic(s).  When are minorities and others looking for a “good deal” going to get tired of being lied to?  Is it OK with you to be a political slave to the democrats (or any political party or entity), waiting year after year for the pie in the sky they promise you which never seems to materialize?  Is it better to put forth no effort other than sticking your hand out your entire life with nothing to show for it but an empty hand, or would it be better to actually put forth the effort to better yourself, earn a living, owe no one, have accomplishments to be proud of, and leave your children something other than a legacy of laziness and poverty?  If you have no desire to do anything other than live off of MY paycheck, please find yourself another country to live in.  I am more than willing to help those who CAN’T help themselves, but those who WON’T help themselves can find sympathy in the dictionary between “something” and “syphilis.”  They won’t find it with me.  The sound of their stomach growling should be motivation enough to find something productive to do.  A popular, although inaccurate, saying is that “God helps those who help themselves.”  In truth, God helps those who depend on Him.  What He usually gives is the ability to get off of ones posterior to do what is necessary for your survival, and He usually gives enough that if you’re using His gifts wisely there is enough left over to help someone else in some way.  How and how much you give to others is between you and God.  Uncle Sam should have nothing to do with it.  So, what will make Social Security better?  It’s demise.  Followed immediately with the abolition of the IRS and its behemoth tax code.

Thanks to ST for the info.

____________________________________________________________________________

Your Social Security

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this.

Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what’s what.

And it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are facts!!!

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1. That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary.
2. That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3. That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4. That the money the participants put into the Independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5. That the annuity payments to the retirees Would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are Now receiving a Social Security check every month — And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of The money we paid to the federal government to ‘put Away, you may be interested in the following:

————————————————————-

Q: Which political party took Social Security from the Independent ‘Trust Fund’ (a.k.a. “lock box” that the democrats love to talk about) and put it in to the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically- Controlled House and Senate.

——————————————————————–

Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

———————————————————————

Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

——————————————————————-

Q: Which political party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That’s right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, they began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them Even though they never paid a dime into it!

———————————————————————-

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people read this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so.

But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU share this with?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

‘A government big enough to give you everything you want, Is strong enough to take everything you have.’
—-Thomas Jefferson—-

Will Obama Stand Up for These Kids?

It’s interesting how many minorities and special interest groups that count on democrats/liberals to give them stuff and keep voting said democrats into office, are the very same minorities and special interests that the democrats and liberals have been throwing under the bus for decades.

By WILLIAM MCGURN

Dick Durbin has a nasty surprise for two of Sasha and Malia Obama’s new schoolmates. And it puts the president in an awkward position.

The children are Sarah and James Parker. Like the Obama girls, Sarah and James attend the Sidwell Friends School in our nation’s capital. Unlike the Obama girls, they could not afford the school without the $7,500 voucher they receive from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. Unfortunately, a spending bill the Senate takes up this week includes a poison pill that would kill this program — and with it perhaps the Parker children’s hopes for a Sidwell diploma.

Sarah and James Parker attend Sidwell Friends School with the president’s daughters, thanks to a voucher program Sen. Dick Durbin wants to end.

Known as the “Durbin language” after the Illinois Democrat who came up with it last year, the provision mandates that the scholarship program ends after the next school year unless Congress reauthorizes it and the District of Columbia approves. The beauty of this language is that it allows opponents to kill the program simply by doing nothing. Just the sort of sneaky maneuver that’s so handy when you don’t want inner-city moms and dads to catch on that you are cutting one of their lifelines.

Deborah Parker says such a move would be devastating for her kids. “I once took Sarah to Roosevelt High School to see its metal detectors and security guards,” she says. “I wanted to scare her into appreciation for what she has at Sidwell.” It’s not just safety, either. According to the latest test scores, fewer than half of Roosevelt’s students are proficient in reading or math.

That’s the reality that the Parkers and 1,700 other low-income students face if Sen. Durbin and his allies get their way. And it points to perhaps the most odious of double standards in American life today: the way some of our loudest champions of public education vote to keep other people’s children — mostly inner-city blacks and Latinos — trapped in schools where they’d never let their own kids set foot.

This double standard is largely unchallenged by either the teachers’ unions or the press corps. For the teachers’ unions, it’s a fairly cold-blooded calculation. They’re willing to look the other way at lawmakers who chose private or parochial schools for their own kids — so long as these lawmakers vote in ways that keep the union grip on the public schools intact and an escape hatch like vouchers bolted.

As for the press, complaints tend to be limited to the odd column or editorial. That’s one reason it was so startling back in 2000 when Time magazine’s Tamala Edwards, during a live televised debate at Harlem’s Apollo Theater, asked Al Gore about the propriety of sending his own son to private school while opposing any effort to extend the same choice to African-Americans without his financial wherewithal. As CNN’s Jeff Greenfield would note later in the same debate, Mr. Gore “bristled” when Ms. Edward’s put the question to him.

Virginia Walden-Ford, executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice, wouldn’t mind making a few more politicians bristle. “I’d like to see a reporter stand up at one of those nationally televised press conferences and ask President Obama what he thinks about what his own party is doing to keep two innocent kids from attending the same school where he sends his?”

As for Sidwell, the school has welcomed the Opportunity Scholarship program. Though headmaster Bruce Stewart declines to get into either politics or the Obamas, he says that a program that gives parents more educational options for their children is not only good for their kids, it’s good for the community. Plainly he’s not doing it for the money: Even the full D.C. voucher covers only a small fraction of Sidwell’s actual costs.

All of which leaves the First Parent with a decision to make: Will he stand up for those like his own children’s schoolmates — or stand in front of the Sidwell door with Mr. Durbin? It’s hard to imagine white congressional Democrats going up against him if he called them out on an issue where they have put him in this embarrassing position. This, after all, is a man who has written of the “anger” he felt as a community organizer, when his attempts to improve things for Chicago school kids ran up against an “uncomfortable fact.”

“The biggest source of resistance [to reform],” he said, “was rarely talked about . . . namely, the uncomfortable fact that every one of our churches was filled with teachers, principals, and district superintendents. Few of these educators sent their own children to public schools; they knew too much for that. But they would defend the status quo with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of two decades before.”

Let’s just say that Sarah and James Parker — and thousands just like them — could use some of that same Obama anger right about now.

Write to MainStreet@wsj.com