Earlier this month, Judicial Watch discovered that the IRS never even bothered looking for Lois Lerner’s “missing” emails, which they claimed were lost as a result of a computer crash in 2011. Not to worry, it seems that as many as 30,000 emails have now been recovered by the IRS inspector general. The U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) informed congressional staffers from several committees on Friday that the emails were found among hundreds of “disaster recovery tapes” that were used to back up the IRS email system. “They just said it took them several weeks and some forensic effort to get these emails off these tapes,” a congressional aide told theWashington Examiner.
The IRS, in a statement provided to the Examiner, said the agency and IRS Commissioner John Koskinen is fully cooperating with the investigation. "As Commissioner Koskinen has stated, the IRS welcomes TIGTA’s independent review and expert forensic analysis." The IRS statement said. "Commissioner Koskinen has said for some time he would be pleased if additional Lois Lerner emails from this time frame could be found." […] In all, investigators from the inspector general’s office combed through 744 disaster recovery tapes. They are not finished looking. There are 250 million emails ion the tapes that will be reviewed. Officials said it is likely they will find missing emails from other IRS officials who worked under Lerner and who said they suffered computer crashes. House and Senate committees are seeking the emails to investigate the role the former head of tax exempt organizations played in the targeting of tea party and conservative groups leading up to the 2012 election, and whether she was working with Obama administration officials to single them out. “Though it is unclear whether TIGTA has found all of the missing Lois Lerner e-mails, there may be significant information in this discovery,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa told the Examiner. “The Oversight Committee will be looking for information about her mindset and who she was communicating with outside the IRS during a critical period of time when the IRS was targeting conservative groups.” Issa also expressed frustration over the IRS’ cooperativeness with Congress throughout the investigation. “The agency first failed to disclose the loss to Congress and then tried to declare Lerner’s e-mails gone and lost forever. Once again it appears the IRS hasn’t been straight with Congress and the American people,” he continued.
Medicare, Part G – Long Term Care
Say you're a sick senior citizen, and the government says there is no Nursing Home care available for you. What do you do? Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older, a gun (Part G), and four bullets. You are allowed to shoot four politicians. This means, of course, that you'll be sent to prison where you'll receive three meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating & air conditioning, cable TV, library, and all the Health Care you need. Need new teeth? No problem. Need glasses? That's great. Need a hearing aid, new hip, knees, kidney, lungs, sex change, or heart? They're all covered. As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you at least as often as they do now! And, who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you they can't afford for you to go into a home. And, you can get rid of 4 useless politicians while you're at it. And now, because you're a prisoner, you don't have to pay any more income taxes. Is this a great country or what? Now that we've solved your long term care issues, enjoy your week..
Our thanks to Captain Bruce F.
It’s Happening: NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio doesn’t think Hillary is progressive enough
BY NOAH ROTHMAN
Appearing at a Politico breakfast this week, progressive icon and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio effusively praised his fellow liberal, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but his plaudits for likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was far more reserved. In May, Clinton delivered a fiery,“populist” speech, according to press accounts, denouncing the scourge of income inequality. “Economists have documented how the share of income and wealth going to those at the very top — not just the top 1 percent but the top 0.1 percent, the 0.01 percent of the population — has risen sharply over the last generation,” the former secretary of state exclaimed. “Some are calling it a throwback to the Gilded Age of the robber barons.” Either he simply did not catch that speech, or even these stratospheric levels of hyperbolic pandering to the left were just not good enough for Mayor de Blasio. “I think whoever runs has to address income inequality. They have to do it morally and they have to do it politically,” he said, in a veiled effort to drive Clinton to the left. “The absence (of which) will lead to failure.” After saying that he thinks it is “necessary” for the next Democratic nominee to focus heavily on that issue which so energized the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011, the NYC mayor added that he would be “honored” to offer his services to the next nominee (as he did when he served as campaign manager for Clinton’s 2000 U.S. Senate bid) to help him or her craft that message. “The Democrat should be willing to challenge the status quo,” de Blasio said of the eventual Democratic nominee. “The Democrat should be willing to challenge wealthy and powerful interests and should marry that with a grass-roots organizing strategy that epitomizes the message.” As for Clinton, de Blasio is still waiting to hear that populist income inequality speech she gave in May. “I don’t think we’ve had the opportunity to hear from her on this new (post-recession) reality,” he said, according to The New York Post. When even your former campaign manager believes you do not accurately represent the party from which you are seeking the presidential nomination… The curious condition here is that Clinton did not depart from the ideological center of gravity of the Democratic Party, the ideological center of gravity left her. In 2006, well after de Blasio committed to get Clinton elected to the Senate, the junior New York senator was described as the party’s scion of the “liberal wing.” Today, despite her slavish efforts to appease the restless progressive elements within her party by mimicking their tired dogma, Clinton cannot shed the image that she is a squishy centrist. This is yet another confirmation that the Democratic Party of the Obama era is well to the left of the Democratic Party of the last decade.
Deep-blue Arlington elects first non-Democrat since 1983, kills off expensive streetcar project
BY MARY KATHARINE HAM
It’s a story we’ve all heard before. In 2006, when economic times were good and the Northern Virginia area was riding high as it always does on cronyism’s coattails, Arlington decided it’d be keen and swell to put a streetcar into a developing area of the city. The purported idea was to allow for more development and less congestion at a rather reasonable cost. Alas, once local lawmakers became enamored of this romantic boondoggle—how charmingly Bay Area of us to have a streetcar!—they lost sight of whether it actually would allow for more development, less congestion, or cost anything within a universe of reasonable. The projected cost has ballooned from about $100 million to half a billion dollars since it was first proposed. Opposition to the streetcar has been growing with its price tag, but lawmakers remained under its powerful spell until Election Day jolted them.
On that day, the city elected its first non-Democrat to office since 1983 in John Vihstadt, a Republican-endorsed Independent candidate and vociferous streetcar critic. He won handily (55-43) over a Democratic opponent, carrying the vast majority of Arlington precincts even though Democratic Sen. Mark Warner earned the “majority of votes in every one of Arlington’s precincts, and took 70.59 percent of Arlington ballots” on the same day. Vihstadt had already won a special election earlier this year, but this is for the full term.
Arlington County on Tuesday abruptly canceled two long-planned streetcar projects that had been hailed by smart-growth advocates as catalysts for development but stirred bitter opposition among residents newly skeptical of government projects.
Despite solid backing from developers, leaders of neighboring Fairfax County and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), the plan to launch streetcars along Columbia Pike and in Crystal City became toxic in Arlington, where elected officials pride themselves on progressive urban planning as well as on building polite consensus…
“How did we arrive at this point? We . . . were caught flat-footed when organized opposition to the streetcar surfaced in just the last year or so,” Fisette said at a sober midday news conference. “We were unable to persuade a majority of voters that a streetcar system is Arlington’s next generation of transit and that we can afford to build it.”
Garvey said she doesn’t think the streetcar’s cancellation “changes things at all” with her relationships on the County Board. Minutes later, after Fisette and Garvey finished giving interviews, Garvey approached Fisette and said “good job” and offered to shake his hand. Fisette pulled his hand away and said “no thanks” before walking past her.
It’s tough when you have to respond to voters. He needs time to heal. Now that you’ve heard the facts about how much this project would cost and how much voters disliked it, enjoy this quote from streetcar diehard Councilman Walter Tejada:
“Turning away from a modern streetcar system is a dramatic step backwards. Arlington’s credibility in the region will now be adversely affected.”
If you can strike a blow against crazy-expensive, trendy, urban-planning transit projects in Arlington, Va., I have hope for stopping boondoggles everywhere. What Arlingtonians for Sensible Transit is begging to be started in your town?
Al Sharpton: I have tax problems because people hate Obama or Trayvon Martin or something like that
BY JEFF DUNETZ
Professional racial agitator Al Sharpton responded to Tuesday’s NY Times piece revealing that both Sharpton and his charity National Action Network was increasingly delinquent in paying taxes to NY State and vendors who performed services. According to the MSNBC host and architect of racial discord, the progressive NY Times published the story because of politically motivated hostility toward Bill de Blasio and Barack Obama:
I think it’s political, he said. A lot of people don’t like the fact that President Obama’s the president. A lot of people do not like the fact that Bill de Blasio won for mayor. And they certainly don’t like that I’m still here, and I ain’t going nowhere.
Later on he added:
Every time there’s a Sean Bell or a Ferguson or a Trayvon Martin, we go through my taxes. It’s the same agreement, y’all.
The New York Times piece reported:
Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Raw Talent and Revals Communications owe another $717,329 on state and federal tax liens.
But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details.
In a 30-minute press conference at his Harlem office which ended with him abruptly walking out on a roomful of reporters, Sharpton said, “The National Action Network’s tax debt as of December of 2013 was a little over $400,000. …On that, they want $400,000 in penalties. The board’s position at our national convention was that why should we have to pay 100 percent if we can knock it down. But we continued to pay the monthly installment while we did.”
Asked about the combined amount in taxes that he and his organization owed—$4.5, million according to the Times— Sharpton said, “How could I owe what you originally owed in 2008. Then that would have meant we paid none of the installments and that we didn’t put up the $1 million that everybody reported.”
However, Sharpton did not give the outstanding balance personally owed by him and his for-profit companies –Raw Talent and Revals Communications. Rather, he focused his remarks on how much money his nonprofit group, the National Action Network, has paid back. He also talked about paying back his federal taxes. The Times story agrees that he has been paying down his debt to the IRS, but his state tax and the Action Network’s payroll tax debt however has been growing.
Records reviewed by The New York Times show more than $4.5 million in current state and federal tax liens against him and his for-profit businesses. And though he said in recent interviews that he was paying both down, his balance with the state, at least, has actually grown in recent years. His National Action Network appears to have been sustained for years by not paying federal payroll taxes on its employees.
Sharpton also disputed the claim in the NY Times story that he leaned on the generosity of friends and sometimes even his charity, intermingling its finances with his own to cover his daughters’ private school tuition. According to Sharpton he only borrowed money from the National Action Network against his salary to help pay off his daughter’s school.
It is difficult to evaluate whether Sharpton or the NY Times is telling the truth. Sharpton didn’t really address the newspaper’s charges — he answered different questions. And it is hard to believe that the bible of the progressive movement, the NY Times, is attacking Al Sharpton for political reasons.
If the story does turn out to be false, it would be a wonderful demonstration of karma. Despite the fact that he’s a Baptist minister, Al Sharpton regularly breaks the ninth commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” He has incited riots; he has falsely accused people of crimes, made disparaging remarks about people without any justification.
Sadly Sharpton will probably miss this lesson as he has missed so many others.
TED CRUZ ON HOW TO ‘REIGN IN A DESPOTIC EXECUTIVE’
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) appeared with Megyn Kelly on Fox News Wednesday night, to discuss his plans to resist President Obama’s amnesty plans. Although the video posted by Senator Cruz’s office modestly omits Kelly’s introduction, she went out of her way to cite his legal credentials: in addition to sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he “previously served as Solicitor General in the border state of Texas, and has authored more than eighty U.S. Supreme Court briefs, and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court.” He therefore speaks with authority when he says Barack Obama had it right the first twenty-five times he addressed this issue, and said he lacked the imperial powers to impose new immigration laws.
“We are, unfortunately, witnessing a constitutional crisis,” said Cruz. “What President Obama is doing, is he is defying the law, he’s defying the Constitution. You know, the President quite right said, just a few weeks ago, his policies were on the ballot all over the country. This last election was a referendum on amnesty, and the American people overwhelmingly rose up and said ‘No, we don’t want lawless amnesty.’ I’m sorry to say President Obama’s reaction is defiant, and it is angry with the American people.”
Yes, Barack Obama has a pen, a phone, and a burning desire to punish the American people for repudiating him in the midterm elections. His rhetoric denies the significance of the election, and the voters’ rejection of his ideology, but his actions run more toward ensuring the voters can never do something like that again. Hell hath no fury like a lame duck scorned, especially when that lame duck can count on friendly media to cover his back. Speaking of which, we’re going into two solid weeks of network news outlets maintaining a blackout on the Jonathan Gruber revelations, to say nothing of the secondary scandal in which Obama lied shamelessly about his association with the bean-spilling MIT professor. The same press doesn’t seem very upset about the White House feeding them phony talking points about how Reagan and Bush abused executive power to impose amnesty the same way Obama is doing. Congratulations, ladies and gentlemen of the mainstream media! No one keeps the American people misinformed better than you guys.
This media environment will make both components of Cruz’s two-step response to amnesty tough to pull off. Step One involves making the lame-duck years a living hell for Obama: “The new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should stand up and say: ‘If you disregard the Constitution, if you disregard the law, if you issue this executive amnesty the new Congress for the next two years will not confirm a single nomination, judicial or executive, other than vital national security positions, until you end this illegal amnesty.”
That’s a tough stance, and Cruz must know Obama would quickly call the bluff, probably by sending a minority and/or female applicant to the Republicans and flaying them with racism/War on Women rhetoric if they stand firm on the no-confirmation threat. (Say, isn’t there just such a nominee standing by for Attorney General at this very moment?) Republicans would be accused of stubborn intransigence and gridlock, with the media joining the chorus immediately. Within two weeks of the boycott beginning, they would be accused of obsessing over “old news.”
Naturally, Cruz would want to respond by saying Obama is the one forcing the impasse, on an issue where the American people overwhelmingly side with the Republicans. You can already see the White House’s despotic response to that argument, as Kelly put it to Cruz during the interview. Right after the midterm election, Obama bizarrely declared it irrelevant, and said he would draw his authority from his mystical ability to divine the will of the people who didn’t bother to vote. Now the White House is claiming the historic defeat of Democrats was actually an endorsement of the Democrat agenda, because no matter how many members of Obama’s party voters flung upon the ash heap of history, what they really want is “progress”… rammed down their throats, good and hard.
The problem Cruz will face is that the Beltway media culture will blast the President’s loony argument right into Republican faces, and not only will some of them be unable to hear what heartland America is saying over the din, but some of them don’t want to hear anything but Obama’s line on amnesty. Too many members of the Republican establishment either think they’ll go down under a sea of Hispanic voters if they stand against it, or they represent business interests that want open borders. Obama doubtless factored that into his calculations when he decided to pick this fight. It’s another variation on the age-old theme of an aggressive minority making heated demands from a relatively passive majority, whose resistance can be eroded with a variety of distractions and threats. This is the inevitable result of degrading the Constitution, which gave us armor against both the much-discussed “tyranny of the majority”… and the less well-understood tyranny of the minority, which is actually even more of a problem under the kind of centralized mega-state the Founders warned us against tolerating.
Part Two of Cruz’s plan is also going to depend on a stiffness of spine not every Republican has been known to demonstrate: using the power of the purse. “We need to systematically pass appropriations legislation funding the Department of Defense, funding the VA, funding one department after another after another. And then once the vital functions are funded, we need to pass appropriations with riders specifically limiting the power of the Congress and the power of the president to spend money on illegal amnesty.”
Of course, as Ted Cruz knows better than anyone, there has been a determined campaign to erode the power of the purse, moving America toward the elected-dictator model favored by the Left, in which Americans would get one chance every four years to choose between two absolute rulers. The idea that Congress can fight the presidential agenda by defunding it is considered extremely quaint, an intolerable block against Progress and Getting Stuff Done. If this process of dismantling congressional powers in favor of an imperial executive disturbs you, an easy remedy is available: vote a Republican into the White House, particularly someone who might use those executive super-powers to reduce the power of government and take vote-buying money away from the Left… someone like, oh, say, Ted Cruz. All this nonsense about the imperial presidency will end instantly, and mighty hosannas to the powers of Congress – yay, even unto the gridlock-welding blowtorch of the filibuster! – will rise from the Left and its media allies. Everything Obama is saying about the glorious ability of presidents to write laws will be instantly memory-holed, never to be mentioned again. If you really want the separation of powers restored to its full glory, keep Democrats in the minority in both houses of Congress. You’ll get civics lessons from the big papers and broadcast networks every day.
Kelly was not slow to observe that pretty much any significant exercise of purse-power is doomed to end in a shutdown drama. Cruz said that would be a “wrong and irresponsible response,” an irrational “temper tantrum” by the President. Conventional wisdom says Republicans get blamed for all shutdown battles. Cruz is ready to put that wisdom to the test. We can only hope the rest of the Republican leadership is ready to stand with him, and they can get their message past the media filter. I’ve always thought the leadership was foolish to abandon Cruz and flagellate itself before the high priests of Beltway media after the last installment of Shutdown Theater; maybe they’ll consider the results of the midterm elections, look at the poll numbers opposing amnesty, meditate upon Obama’s cellar-dwelling approval ratings, think about how helpful Democrat control of the Senate was to shaping the last shutdown narrative, and conclude this is good ground for a battle to restore the power of the purse.
It really is a battle worth fighting, because with every check against executive power removed – save for the partisan disdain of Beltway media culture, and the ability of our bloated government to reflexively defend itself from the use of executive power to reduce its size and wealth – we would find ourselves in a truly post-American nation, ruled under a philosophy of government completely alien to our traditions. Some very bad ideas crossed our borders long before the latest wave of illegal immigrants.
I understand we've turned the page to the next controversy -- Obama's unconstitutional immigration pander -- but I'd like to dwell a little longer on the previous travesty. Obama administration health-care consultant Jonathan Gruber was discovered to have boasted that Obamacare was designed to exploit the "stupidity" of American voters and elude honest accounting by hiding both its cost and the taxes necessary to pay for it. When asked about this in Brisbane, Australia, the president rolled his eyes at the controversy. "I just heard about this," Obama said. "... The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with ... is no reflection on the actual process that was run." "We had a year-long debate," Obama exasperatedly continued. "Go look back at your stories. One thing we can't say is that we didn't have a lengthy debate over health care in the United States. ... It's fair to say there is not a provision in the health-care law that was not extensively debated and was not fully transparent." This statement is a falsehood, punctuated by deceits, supported by half-truths, in defense of a scam. Let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he had "just heard about this." After all, he doesn't hear about a lot of terrible things he's ultimately responsible for -- the IRS scandal, mismanagement at the VA, etc. -- until they appear, often tardily, in the newspapers. The fact that Gruber was not a staffer is a small truth in service of a bigger lie. Gruber was far more indispensible than any staffer. Nearly every news outlet referred to the man as an "architect" of Obamacare. (Many of those outlets are now scrambling to unsay what they said.) Mere White House staffers were like the bricklayers and plumbers, Gruber was the guy drawing the blueprints. Who gets more credit for a new skyscraper, the guy who installed the toilets or the guy who helped design it? It's true that there was a big national argument about the Affordable Care Act. It's also true that the press covered it extensively. But an argument is not the same thing as a debate, never mind a transparent one. If Obamacare was so transparent, why did Nancy Pelosi, a general contractor for the ACA, insist that the only way to know what's in it is to pass it? Real debates require honesty. If I say, "Two plus two equals four," and you say, "No, it equals a duck," and then refuse to accept any contrary facts or evidence, that's not a debate, it's performance art. In 2009, ABC's George Stephanopoulos confronted Obama about the fact that the individual mandate is a tax. Obama scoffed and filibustered. Stephanopoulos responded by citing the dictionary definition of a tax. "George," Obama responded, "the fact that you looked up ... the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition." Huh? In what open and transparent debate is the dictionary definition of a word irrelevant? By the way, if the Supreme Court had agreed with Obama, the law would be unconstitutional. President Obama lied -- relentlessly -- during that so-called "debate." Most famously, he repeatedly said, "You can keep your doctor" (and your insurance) if you want. He often ended such lies by saying, "Period. End of story," as if his emphatic assertion were irrefutable fact. Either he knew he was lying, or the law is so un-transparent that even the man who signed it into law couldn't understand its most basic functions. Speaking of transparency, The Washington Examiner's Timothy Carney notes that Obama frequently attacked the "special interests" opposed to the bill even though the very same interests supported the bill thanks to the generous bribes -- er, "subsidies" -- included therein. From the Rose Garden in 2009, Obama attacked drug companies for opposing the bill, even though he knew the drug lobby helped craft it. (Carney notes that, "Behind closed doors, the White House apologized to drugmakers for that line, blaming a 'young speechwriter.'") Still, the biggest lie is the one Obama left unsaid in Brisbane. He implied that he won the debate. He didn't. He won the fight in Congress -- by brute partisan force. But the majority of the American people watching this farcical debate were never convinced by Obama's claims. There was a time when such things mattered. But when it comes to the progressives' desire to impose their will -- on health care and, now, immigration -- what the stupid voters want counts for little.
Now that President Obama has acted to defer deportation for some four to five million illegal immigrants, all eyes will be on the Republican Party's response. How they handle the challenge may well shape the future of the party and the country. Provocateurs will urge defiance. Retiring Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn even suggested, "You're going to see -- hopefully not -- but you could see instances of anarchy. You could see violence." More likely will be attempts to defund the president's order and legal challenges to his constitutional authority.
I would counsel a different reaction: Don't take the bait.
Sure, the president acted undemocratically -- that's nothing new with this man. He is contemptuous of the American people and Congress, ignoring even members within his own party.
But the fact is, he unwittingly may have done Republicans a favor by taking action to fashion relief for those illegal immigrants who've established deep roots and whose labor and economic contributions the country needs. Americans, by large majorities, favor the substance of what the president has done -- if not the process he chose -- according to polls on the subject in recent years.
Moreover, most Republicans, including most GOP members of Congress, have zero interest in deporting millions of otherwise law-abiding unauthorized immigrants. So why not let the president take the heat for having come up with an alternative to deportation?
Do Republicans really want to make the case for separating parents from their American-born children, especially young ones? Who benefits from preventing parents from working -- legally, and paying taxes -- so that they can care for their own families and help fund government services? Why would Republicans want to deny jobs to people who eagerly seek them in order to "protect" those jobs for workers who've demonstrated they won't take them?
Smart GOP lawmakers will give speeches decrying the president's usurpation of power but lay off the beneficiaries of the executive order. It doesn't advance Republicans' values to demonize parents of American citizens, who make up most of the people affected by the president's order.
The rule of law is important -- it is the foundational basis for our system of government. But not all laws are created equal. We have a broken system of immigration laws that desperately need fixing. And Republicans now have the choice -- and the numbers in Congress -- to fix them.
Republicans have long argued that border security is the main issue. Secure the border, and then address immigration reform, they say. But like it or not, the latter is the necessary first step to accomplish the former.
Since passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, we have spent well in excess of $225 billion (in current dollars) enforcing our immigration laws, according to a report by former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner Doris Meissner. In 2012 alone, we spent more on enforcing our borders than on all other federal criminal law enforcement -- nearly a quarter more than we did on the FBI, ATF, DEA, Secret Service and U.S. Marshals Service combined!
And, guess what? It's worked -- or at least made a big dent in the problem. Illegal immigration has plummeted over the past several years and is now down to levels not seen since 1972. Republicans should take credit for helping stem the flow instead of pretending that we're experiencing an increase of illegal border crossers.
Our economy needs an expanding workforce. The retiring baby boomers alone will strain our ability to fill jobs much less pay for Social Security and Medicare in the years ahead. We should be welcoming young workers, not making it difficult to impossible for newcomers to gain access to jobs Americans can't or won't fill.
Republicans have an opportunity to fashion good legislative policy despite executive overreach. Is there no one among them brave enough to stand up and say let's draft meaningful reform and make our borders more secure by providing legal ways for workers to come here? The American people want that kind of leadership. They want action, not angry talk and threats.
What the mainstream media won’t tell you about global warming
Between the recent “deal” with China, reports of Obama taking climate action via executive fiat, and the debate over keystone, global warming has been over the mainstream media recently. But instead of debating whether or not the global warming hypotheses is a valid threat to the Earth, the media starts with the premise that the theory is real and anybody who contests global warming is the equivalent of people who don’t believe the holocaust actually happened, they are called deniers.
The “LA Times” refuses to print letters that disagree with global warming, CNN openly mocks them on air, the NY Times ran a cartoon suggesting climate change skeptics should be stabbed to death, and MSNBC and CBS only interview climate change believers on their programs.
The fact that the liberal skewed media refuses to look at both sides of the climate argument should be evidence enough that they realize global warming theory is flawed. But as one who likes to use facts, below are twelve facts the mainstream media isn’t telling you about climate change. They may not make one believe that global warming is a fraud, but they should at least destroy the argument that climate change is settled science.
1) Through Halloween of 2014- The Global Warming Pause has lasted 18 years and one month. Heartland Institute analyst, Peter Ferrara, notes“If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.” So there was thirty years of cooling followed by 20 years of warming and almost 18 years of cooling…and that’s what the global warming scare is all about.
2) Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels and the Arctic ice cap has seen record growth.Global sea ice area has been averaging above normal for the past two years. But to get around those facts, the global warming enthusiasts are claiming that global warming causes global cooling (really).
3) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant it’s what you exhale and it is what “feeds” plants. Without CO2 there would not be a single blade of grass or a redwood tree, nor would there be the animal life that depends on vegetation; wheat and rice, for example, as food. Without CO2 mankind would get pretty hungry. Even worse the global warming proponents keep talking about population control because they don’t want more people around to exhale, and let’s not talk about what they say about stopping methane (no spicy foods, no cows, no fart jokes).
4) There is not ONE climate computer model that has accurately connected CO2 to climate change. In fact CO2 is at its highest levels in 13,000 years and the earth hasn’t warmed in almost 18 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plantsCO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today’s levels.
5) Even with the relatively high levels there is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. At 78% nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. Oxygen is the second most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere at 21%. Water vapor is the third most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere; it varies up to 5%. Exhale freely because carbon dioxide is the least abundant gas in the atmosphere at 0.04%.
6) The climate models pushed by the global warming enthusiasts haven’t been right. Think about that one for a second. If you believe what people like Al Gore the polar ice caps should have melted by now (actually by last year), most coastal cities should be underwater and it should be a lot warmer by now. As my Mom always said, Man plans and God laughs. The Earth’s climate is a very complicated system and the scientists haven’t been able to account for all the components to create an accurate model.
7) You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming. The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion.
8) I changed my mind…this past February, Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist, andthe co-founder of Greenpeace, the militant environmental group told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee “
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.” There are more like Moore. 9) Back to Ice Age– predictions. When I took Earth Science in college 38 years ago, the professor explained that the scientific consensus was we are heading toward an ice age. That was just before text books were changed to discuss global warming. That was followed by calling it climate change. Now many scientists claim there is new evidence that the Earth may be heading toward an ice age (please stop crying Mr. Gore). 10) Droughts have not increased. It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Professor Roger Pielke Jr. said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 11) Polar Bears are alive and well and not dying out. In the Fall 2014 issue of RANGE Magazine Dr. Susan Crockford wrote, “In a recent TV ad campaign, the Center for Biological Diversity said, “global warming is pushing polar bears to the absolute brink.” Results of recent research show this to be a lie – fat, healthy bears like this one from near Barrow, Alaska, are still common and many of the assumptions used by computer models to predict future disasters have turned out to be wrong.” In case you were wondering, walruses are doing fine also.
12) No Increase In Hurricanes: A study published in the July 2012 Journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms, asserting:
We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls, but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data. The only thing “man-made” about global warming, is the argument that we should all stop thinking because there is a scientific consensus about global warming. There are too many questions still open.