Americans are increasingly enraged about the price of gasoline, and rightly so. Skyrocketing gas prices are beginning to cut into the lifestyle choices to which most of us have become accustomed, forcing drivers to either cut back on driving or ditch their SUVs for small, fuel-efficient autos.
Oil companies and gas stations are easy targets for Americans' rage in the blame game. After all, somebody, somewhere is to blame for this mess. And it just so happens that the oil companies are making excellent profits for their stockholders, which good corporations are supposed to do.
Of course, the mainstream media never reports that the profit margin percentage for companies like Microsoft and Google is much larger than that of the oil companies. In the liberal blame-game, it is always politically correct to blame the oil companies.
But is it fair to blame the oil companies?
Consider some facts. In 1992 the price of a barrel of crude oil was about 15 bucks. By 1998, ten years ago, crude oil cost roughly $25 per barrel.
Within the last 10 years the price of crude on the open market has steadily increased as demand for the commodity has skyrocketed with China and India beginning to use oil increasingly in their growing economies.
That steady increase in the market value of crude reached an unheard-of $127 per barrel this month. That's roughly 100 bucks per barrel higher than in 1998.
Oil companies do not set the price of crude. The open market determines the price based upon investors/speculators. China and India are now using millions of barrels of oil, meaning, of course, that they are now near the top among the countries of the world in the production of 'greenhouse gases.'
Yet the United Nations granted both countries an exemption from its 'mandated' reduction in greenhouse gases.
With these two countries now using as much oil as most any other country in the world, and with our dependence on foreign oil still remaining at a fairly high level, it is no wonder that the markets have created a financial bonanza for crude.
When the oil companies are having to pay 100 bucks per barrel more for crude than they did 10 years ago, is it really a surprise that gasoline prices have skyrocketed when compared to the past?
The solution that many liberals are selling to a gullible public is to place a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. My friends, oil is already taxed at a rate that boggles the mind. For every 8 cents the oil companies make in profits, the federal government alone collects 18 cents in taxes, and that doesn't count state and local taxes.
In short, the federal government is making windfall profits off of the oil company profits.
So, why does the government need or want more?
In addition, the environmentalist nutcases have seen to it that not only are we forbidden from drilling for oil anywhere in the country but that we are blocked from building more nuclear power facilities or new oil refineries. No new refinery has been built in the U.S. for over 30 years.
Thus, if the answer is weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, how can that be done when a few very powerful extremists have tied our hands?
It should be noted that one of the environmentalists' favorite countries, France, is powered almost exclusively by nuclear energy to the tune of at least 80% of its energy needs.
With new technology that makes nuclear energy as safe as any type of energy on the planet outside of solar, there should be no reason why the U.S. should not build more nuclear facilities and shift to that form of energy as quickly as possible. Nuclear power also ranks with solar as the cleanest form of energy available.
But the answer is not 'taking oil company profits' out of the hands of stockholders in order to fund these alternative energy sources. We were ALREADY funding alternative sources until the environmentalist nutcases put a stop to it.
Ted Kennedy will not even allow windmill-generated wind power to be developed on the shoreline of Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Thus, who IS to blame for the current crisis? Look no further than the environmentalist movement, liberals like Ted Kennedy, and countries like China and India. The oil companies and your local gasoline vendor are no more to blame for the rising prices than your grocer is to blame for rising food prices due to the environmentalist insistence that we take crops and turn them into bio-fuel instead of food.
Showing posts with label environmentalist activists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmentalist activists. Show all posts
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Thursday, June 14, 2007
ETHANOL TO SPIKE FOOD COSTS 50 - 65%
Washington, DC (TLS). The U.S. Agriculture Department reported today that Americans should brace themselves for a massive case of sticker-shock by the end of the summer...not at the new-car lot but at the grocery store.
Prices for common, everyday food staples such as meat, milk, cheese, corn and other veggies, will increase by 50 to 65 percent by September.
On balance, the average American family will pay at least 100 bucks per month more for groceries this September than they did last September.
What, exactly, is driving this numbing price hike? Ethanol production.
Corn is the main ingredient in ethanol and hundreds of other products, including the feed given to cows. Hence, the price hike in meat, milk, and cheese.
Because farmers are increasingly using farmland to grow corn for the FUEL industry as opposed to the FOOD industry, the law of supply and demand will result in a smaller supply of corn for food and an increasing demand for the food items that depend on corn, thus driving food prices through the roof.
We can thank the Einsteins in the 'environmentalist movement' for the coming train wreck at the grocery store.
For years the 'man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming' crowd and their comrades in the 'renewable bio-fuels' movement have been feeding to the public the notion that oil is evil and that ethanol is the answer to our energy needs.
We will now suffer the consequences of that notion as we pay out the wazoo for food...all because the corn is going to make fuel.
I have never had a problem with developing alternative sources of energy, weaning ourselves off of our dependence on foreign oil. But it is just as bad an idea to depend solely on ethanol and other agri-fuels as it is to depend solely on oil.
We need to begin developing and utilizing nuclear energy to the max, since we have discovered ways to make it safe. It is the cleanest fuel available. Fuel cell technology is another way to go, as are solar and wind power.
As for now, when you are shocked at how food prices suddenly skyrocket in about three months, remember that this is what we get for listening to the loons in the environmentalist movement.
Prices for common, everyday food staples such as meat, milk, cheese, corn and other veggies, will increase by 50 to 65 percent by September.
On balance, the average American family will pay at least 100 bucks per month more for groceries this September than they did last September.
What, exactly, is driving this numbing price hike? Ethanol production.
Corn is the main ingredient in ethanol and hundreds of other products, including the feed given to cows. Hence, the price hike in meat, milk, and cheese.
Because farmers are increasingly using farmland to grow corn for the FUEL industry as opposed to the FOOD industry, the law of supply and demand will result in a smaller supply of corn for food and an increasing demand for the food items that depend on corn, thus driving food prices through the roof.
We can thank the Einsteins in the 'environmentalist movement' for the coming train wreck at the grocery store.
For years the 'man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming' crowd and their comrades in the 'renewable bio-fuels' movement have been feeding to the public the notion that oil is evil and that ethanol is the answer to our energy needs.
We will now suffer the consequences of that notion as we pay out the wazoo for food...all because the corn is going to make fuel.
I have never had a problem with developing alternative sources of energy, weaning ourselves off of our dependence on foreign oil. But it is just as bad an idea to depend solely on ethanol and other agri-fuels as it is to depend solely on oil.
We need to begin developing and utilizing nuclear energy to the max, since we have discovered ways to make it safe. It is the cleanest fuel available. Fuel cell technology is another way to go, as are solar and wind power.
As for now, when you are shocked at how food prices suddenly skyrocket in about three months, remember that this is what we get for listening to the loons in the environmentalist movement.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
A Liberty Sphere Classic on Global Warming
Washington, DC (TLS). The following is a reprint of a Liberty Sphere classic from November of 2006. It is a treatise on global warming and the political implications of the belief that mankind is to blame for climate change.
In anticipation of Glenn Beck's expose of the environmentalist movement's grand hoax this evening on the Headline News Network, I decided to post this Liberty Sphere classic for your consideration.
'HOW ENVIRONMENTALISTS CONSORT TO DESTROY AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE'
by D. Martyn Lloyd-Morgan
The responsible stewardship of the environment is not up for debate in modern times. Every responsible, thinking person is forced to consider the world around us and the impact the activity of man has upon the earth's ability to sustain and renew life. The debate, therefore, centers upon one single issue--globing warming and its cause.
Global warming itself is not really the issue at all. It is a fact. In the earth's long and sometimes violent history, there have been patterns of warming and cooling that run in cycles, usually in response to the sun's activity. As the sun increases in volatility with solar storms, the impact on earth is quite predictable. Earth's temperatures increase.
For example, during the Middle Ages, long before the burning of fossil fuels, the earth experienced a warming that is well-documented among feudal societies where written descriptions of the climate are preserved from the era. In reading those documents we are struck by the descriptions of various writers who describe warm temperatures in areas that are generally known for the cold.
During the modern industrial era, however, particularly at its infancy in the 18th and 19th centuries, we see descriptions of a much cooler climate than that of the Middle Ages. In fact, there was a mini ice age that occurred early on during the period where unusual cold and snowfalls were described by novelists and historians.
These periods of global cooling occur simultaneously with a leveling out of the sun's activity. As solar storms decrease, the earth responds by a cooling of global temperatures.
Presently we are in the midst of an increase in the sun's activity. This activity has been documented for quite some time, resulting in a slight but observable increase in the earth's temperatures.
Thus, the issue of global warming is not up for debate. It is a fact at present, just as it has been a fact many times throughout the cyclical life of the planet. The debate centers on man's role, if any, in the warming that is occurring.
The 'environmentalist movement' has come down on the side of man's culpability in the warming of the earth's temperatures. With a dogmatism that would put Medieval Catholicism to shame, those who belong to the movement insist, adamantly, that the blame for global warming lies squarely with human beings. Human activity, according to the environmentalist dogma, is the single largest contributor to the increase of the earth's temperatures, and thus, steps must be taken to curb man's activity.
The activity in question, of course, is free enterprise, capitalistic industrialism, and entrepreneurship that supposedly 'rapes the precious environment.' This, according to the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement, must be stopped cold.
At the opposite side of the spectrum lies conservatives, libertarians, and those who adhere strictly to 'hard science.' It isn't that these persons deny the possibility of global warming, or global cooling either, for that matter. Rather, these persons question man's contribution to the process. They are not convinced that human activity has much of an impact one way or the other on changes in the earth's temperatures.
Hard science definitely appears to confirm the notion of the latter group of persons.
Take the example of the mammoths in the North Pole region of the earth. Millions of years ago it is clear that the polar region was warm, blooming with plant life, and inhabited by life forms that fed on the plants that were abundant in the region. Hard science proves that this was the case.
Scientists discovered large mammoths frozen in the ice of the polar region that still had undigested green plants in their mouths. These majestic gargantuan creatures roamed the polar region during an era of the earth's history when there was no ice but plant life, grasses, and trees.
The startling discovery of the frozen mammoths in the polar ice region forced scientists to consider one basic fact--there are times when the earth's climate changes suddenly, unpredictably, and violently.
These mammoths had obviously been feeding on the plant life in the polar region, yet they froze to death so quickly that the plants they had just taken into their mouths were frozen along with them. Preserved in the ice for eons of time, these animals provided hard scientific proof of three basic postulates.
First, the polar region was not always frozen but teeming with plant life. Second, this plant life sustained animal life that in today's climate would not survive the cold of the region. And third, the earth is often unpredictable in its wide variances of temperatures, sometimes resulting in sudden, violent, and catastrophic shifts in temperature.
In short, the mammoths froze to death within seconds or minutes while munching on the plants that once grew in the Arctic.
In addition, the mere fact that the Arctic region contains some of the world's most abundant oil deposits is ample proof that the region was once inhabited by numerous animals that left behind fossils that eventually led to the 'fossil fuel' of oil. Such animals could not survive the harsh climate the region has today.
Thus, observable, documented hard science is in unanimous agreement concerning the earth's climate. In the grand scheme of things, mankind has little to do with it. The dramatic shift of the climate in the Arctic region occurred long before man appeared on the earth. The Ice Age was ushered in by forces totally outside the activity of human beings. The warming that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age began long before humans began burning fossil fuels.
It can be documented without dispute, for example, that the earth has been warming for centuries. In actuality, taking the long view, the earth has been warming gradually ever since the end of the last Ice Age, long before there was any industrialization.
Why, then, do the dogmatists within the environmentalist movement insist so vehemently that global warming is a man-made phenomenon? Why are those who present an alternative view to the notion that man caused global warming presently referred to by these dogmatists as 'Holocaust deniers?' These are shockingly harsh terms.
This is not all. PBS was scheduled to do a documentary on global warming. They were planning to utilize the expertise of a world-renown scientist at the University of Oklahoma. However, when the scientist explained to the producers at PBS that he planned on basing his views solely on hard science, they told him in no uncertain terms that he MUST lay the blame for the phenomenon on human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. When the scientist protested that such a view is based upon speculation and opinion rather than hard scientific evidence, he was politely told his services would not be needed on the program.
Why? Why is the dogma of the environmentalist movement so important to its adherents that scientists must be browbeaten into submission and the documented scientific evidence ignored?
The answer is that today's environmentalist movement is not a scientific movement but a political one. The movement is a front for those with a definite political agenda.
Consider this. The scientists who belong to the environmentalist movement claim that their basis of authority on the subject of global warming is 'by consensus.' They have arrived at their viewpoint that man is responsible for global warming by consensus, that is, most of the scientists in the movement adhere to a viewpoint that is not universally held by the best minds within the scientific community.
And this is the source of the problem. If science is determined by consensus, it ceases to be science. It then becomes conjecture, opinion, and theory. Hard science is based upon one thing alone--the observable facts. Anything that cannot be verified with observable facts remains in the realm of opinion and theory. But it is not science.
Thus, the environmentalist movement has outed itself as a purely political movement. By admitting to the notion that scientific fact can be determined by consensus rather than hard evidence, the movement has immediately taken itself totally outside the scientific realm.
This leaves only one dire conclusion. The environmentalist movement is nothing more than a political movement that is dedicated to the destruction of capitalism, entrepreneurship, and free enterprise industrialism. Thus, Americans are told how horrible they are for driving SUVs. We are told how wicked are the oil companies. We treated to diatribes about how awful are the chemical companies. To express a belief that nuclear-powered energy sources are an acceptable, clean alternative is to commit the unpardonable sin. This is enough to get you excommunicated by the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement. You will surely go straight to hell.
Thus, the environmentalist movement is today the single largest threat to liberty in the world outside of terrorism. In the name of saving the planet from us wicked human beings, its adherents would dismantle American capitalism and free enterprise. Under the guise of 'doing good' the movement would destroy the basis of the American economy and totally change our way of life.
It is for this reason that many of the ex-Communists and Socialists from the Cold War have joined the environmentalist movement. When the old Soviet Union fell as a result of the policies of President Ronald Reagan, who brought them to the brink of economic disaster with our massive military buildup, the comrades were caught without a cause and with no place to go.
These people always have to have a subversive 'cause' to justify their existence.
Thus, they chose the environmentalist movement as the perfect vehicle by which to push toward their goal of destroying capitalism, dismantling the American economy, burying our prosperity, and eventually bringing the complete demise of a Republic that is dedicated to human liberty.
To buy into environmentalist pronouncements as the musings of concerned scientists is a big mistake. The practice of environmentalists to ignore hard science and smear the good names of respected scientists who do not subscribe to their views is ample proof of the subversive nature of this movement.
Thinking people can see right through the ruse. When science is decided by 'consensus' and not factual evidence, it is clear that anything the man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming crowd has to say is to be viewed with a grain of salt. They are not to be taken seriously, except for their massive and single-minded desire to dominate politics and alter the course of a free society.
As for their anti-American and anti-liberty scheme, we should quickly and forcefully repudiate their statements in the public arena whenever we have opportunity to do so.
In anticipation of Glenn Beck's expose of the environmentalist movement's grand hoax this evening on the Headline News Network, I decided to post this Liberty Sphere classic for your consideration.
'HOW ENVIRONMENTALISTS CONSORT TO DESTROY AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE'
by D. Martyn Lloyd-Morgan
The responsible stewardship of the environment is not up for debate in modern times. Every responsible, thinking person is forced to consider the world around us and the impact the activity of man has upon the earth's ability to sustain and renew life. The debate, therefore, centers upon one single issue--globing warming and its cause.
Global warming itself is not really the issue at all. It is a fact. In the earth's long and sometimes violent history, there have been patterns of warming and cooling that run in cycles, usually in response to the sun's activity. As the sun increases in volatility with solar storms, the impact on earth is quite predictable. Earth's temperatures increase.
For example, during the Middle Ages, long before the burning of fossil fuels, the earth experienced a warming that is well-documented among feudal societies where written descriptions of the climate are preserved from the era. In reading those documents we are struck by the descriptions of various writers who describe warm temperatures in areas that are generally known for the cold.
During the modern industrial era, however, particularly at its infancy in the 18th and 19th centuries, we see descriptions of a much cooler climate than that of the Middle Ages. In fact, there was a mini ice age that occurred early on during the period where unusual cold and snowfalls were described by novelists and historians.
These periods of global cooling occur simultaneously with a leveling out of the sun's activity. As solar storms decrease, the earth responds by a cooling of global temperatures.
Presently we are in the midst of an increase in the sun's activity. This activity has been documented for quite some time, resulting in a slight but observable increase in the earth's temperatures.
Thus, the issue of global warming is not up for debate. It is a fact at present, just as it has been a fact many times throughout the cyclical life of the planet. The debate centers on man's role, if any, in the warming that is occurring.
The 'environmentalist movement' has come down on the side of man's culpability in the warming of the earth's temperatures. With a dogmatism that would put Medieval Catholicism to shame, those who belong to the movement insist, adamantly, that the blame for global warming lies squarely with human beings. Human activity, according to the environmentalist dogma, is the single largest contributor to the increase of the earth's temperatures, and thus, steps must be taken to curb man's activity.
The activity in question, of course, is free enterprise, capitalistic industrialism, and entrepreneurship that supposedly 'rapes the precious environment.' This, according to the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement, must be stopped cold.
At the opposite side of the spectrum lies conservatives, libertarians, and those who adhere strictly to 'hard science.' It isn't that these persons deny the possibility of global warming, or global cooling either, for that matter. Rather, these persons question man's contribution to the process. They are not convinced that human activity has much of an impact one way or the other on changes in the earth's temperatures.
Hard science definitely appears to confirm the notion of the latter group of persons.
Take the example of the mammoths in the North Pole region of the earth. Millions of years ago it is clear that the polar region was warm, blooming with plant life, and inhabited by life forms that fed on the plants that were abundant in the region. Hard science proves that this was the case.
Scientists discovered large mammoths frozen in the ice of the polar region that still had undigested green plants in their mouths. These majestic gargantuan creatures roamed the polar region during an era of the earth's history when there was no ice but plant life, grasses, and trees.
The startling discovery of the frozen mammoths in the polar ice region forced scientists to consider one basic fact--there are times when the earth's climate changes suddenly, unpredictably, and violently.
These mammoths had obviously been feeding on the plant life in the polar region, yet they froze to death so quickly that the plants they had just taken into their mouths were frozen along with them. Preserved in the ice for eons of time, these animals provided hard scientific proof of three basic postulates.
First, the polar region was not always frozen but teeming with plant life. Second, this plant life sustained animal life that in today's climate would not survive the cold of the region. And third, the earth is often unpredictable in its wide variances of temperatures, sometimes resulting in sudden, violent, and catastrophic shifts in temperature.
In short, the mammoths froze to death within seconds or minutes while munching on the plants that once grew in the Arctic.
In addition, the mere fact that the Arctic region contains some of the world's most abundant oil deposits is ample proof that the region was once inhabited by numerous animals that left behind fossils that eventually led to the 'fossil fuel' of oil. Such animals could not survive the harsh climate the region has today.
Thus, observable, documented hard science is in unanimous agreement concerning the earth's climate. In the grand scheme of things, mankind has little to do with it. The dramatic shift of the climate in the Arctic region occurred long before man appeared on the earth. The Ice Age was ushered in by forces totally outside the activity of human beings. The warming that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age began long before humans began burning fossil fuels.
It can be documented without dispute, for example, that the earth has been warming for centuries. In actuality, taking the long view, the earth has been warming gradually ever since the end of the last Ice Age, long before there was any industrialization.
Why, then, do the dogmatists within the environmentalist movement insist so vehemently that global warming is a man-made phenomenon? Why are those who present an alternative view to the notion that man caused global warming presently referred to by these dogmatists as 'Holocaust deniers?' These are shockingly harsh terms.
This is not all. PBS was scheduled to do a documentary on global warming. They were planning to utilize the expertise of a world-renown scientist at the University of Oklahoma. However, when the scientist explained to the producers at PBS that he planned on basing his views solely on hard science, they told him in no uncertain terms that he MUST lay the blame for the phenomenon on human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. When the scientist protested that such a view is based upon speculation and opinion rather than hard scientific evidence, he was politely told his services would not be needed on the program.
Why? Why is the dogma of the environmentalist movement so important to its adherents that scientists must be browbeaten into submission and the documented scientific evidence ignored?
The answer is that today's environmentalist movement is not a scientific movement but a political one. The movement is a front for those with a definite political agenda.
Consider this. The scientists who belong to the environmentalist movement claim that their basis of authority on the subject of global warming is 'by consensus.' They have arrived at their viewpoint that man is responsible for global warming by consensus, that is, most of the scientists in the movement adhere to a viewpoint that is not universally held by the best minds within the scientific community.
And this is the source of the problem. If science is determined by consensus, it ceases to be science. It then becomes conjecture, opinion, and theory. Hard science is based upon one thing alone--the observable facts. Anything that cannot be verified with observable facts remains in the realm of opinion and theory. But it is not science.
Thus, the environmentalist movement has outed itself as a purely political movement. By admitting to the notion that scientific fact can be determined by consensus rather than hard evidence, the movement has immediately taken itself totally outside the scientific realm.
This leaves only one dire conclusion. The environmentalist movement is nothing more than a political movement that is dedicated to the destruction of capitalism, entrepreneurship, and free enterprise industrialism. Thus, Americans are told how horrible they are for driving SUVs. We are told how wicked are the oil companies. We treated to diatribes about how awful are the chemical companies. To express a belief that nuclear-powered energy sources are an acceptable, clean alternative is to commit the unpardonable sin. This is enough to get you excommunicated by the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement. You will surely go straight to hell.
Thus, the environmentalist movement is today the single largest threat to liberty in the world outside of terrorism. In the name of saving the planet from us wicked human beings, its adherents would dismantle American capitalism and free enterprise. Under the guise of 'doing good' the movement would destroy the basis of the American economy and totally change our way of life.
It is for this reason that many of the ex-Communists and Socialists from the Cold War have joined the environmentalist movement. When the old Soviet Union fell as a result of the policies of President Ronald Reagan, who brought them to the brink of economic disaster with our massive military buildup, the comrades were caught without a cause and with no place to go.
These people always have to have a subversive 'cause' to justify their existence.
Thus, they chose the environmentalist movement as the perfect vehicle by which to push toward their goal of destroying capitalism, dismantling the American economy, burying our prosperity, and eventually bringing the complete demise of a Republic that is dedicated to human liberty.
To buy into environmentalist pronouncements as the musings of concerned scientists is a big mistake. The practice of environmentalists to ignore hard science and smear the good names of respected scientists who do not subscribe to their views is ample proof of the subversive nature of this movement.
Thinking people can see right through the ruse. When science is decided by 'consensus' and not factual evidence, it is clear that anything the man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming crowd has to say is to be viewed with a grain of salt. They are not to be taken seriously, except for their massive and single-minded desire to dominate politics and alter the course of a free society.
As for their anti-American and anti-liberty scheme, we should quickly and forcefully repudiate their statements in the public arena whenever we have opportunity to do so.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
RFK Jr. Blasts Bush Environmental Policy
Washington, DC (TLS). Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. blasted the Bush Administration's environmental policy in a speech delivered at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia on Monday.
As an activist of the extremist environmentalist movement, Kennedy has long advocated for a massive revamping of the U.S. from top to bottom in order to move to a 'green friendly' society. Such a society would abhor the burning of fossil fuels, which he claims is the singular biggest cause for global warming, conveniently ignoring THE SUN, which has been getting hotter.
Environmentalist wackos never mention the sun, by the way, as the singular biggest source for heat and energy on the planet.
This is because if they can convince the country that man is to blame for global warming, it will serve as a convenient excuse for ushering in a new era where individual freedoms are limited 'for the common good.' And in this case the common good means the end of free enterprise, capitalism, and personal liberty. Human beings cannot be trusted to do the right thing and protect the environment, and therefore, government must impose limitations, as the delusional argument goes.
Kennedy is one more example of the propagandists who use the issue of global warming to impose their views on the populace--views which have their basis in collectivism, which always places the 'common good' ahead of individual freedom.
Read about his speech at Virginia Tech here:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-106349
As an activist of the extremist environmentalist movement, Kennedy has long advocated for a massive revamping of the U.S. from top to bottom in order to move to a 'green friendly' society. Such a society would abhor the burning of fossil fuels, which he claims is the singular biggest cause for global warming, conveniently ignoring THE SUN, which has been getting hotter.
Environmentalist wackos never mention the sun, by the way, as the singular biggest source for heat and energy on the planet.
This is because if they can convince the country that man is to blame for global warming, it will serve as a convenient excuse for ushering in a new era where individual freedoms are limited 'for the common good.' And in this case the common good means the end of free enterprise, capitalism, and personal liberty. Human beings cannot be trusted to do the right thing and protect the environment, and therefore, government must impose limitations, as the delusional argument goes.
Kennedy is one more example of the propagandists who use the issue of global warming to impose their views on the populace--views which have their basis in collectivism, which always places the 'common good' ahead of individual freedom.
Read about his speech at Virginia Tech here:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-106349
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Katie Couric, Al Gore, and the 'Greens'
Washington, DC (TLS). An unexpected turn has been taken by The Liberty Sphere of late, as we have inadvertently discovered just how deep and systemic is the Leftist slant and outright bias of Katie Couric and CBS News. The Liberty Sphere was the first to blow the whistle on Couric and CBS's outright dishonest news reporting concerning a poll that supposedly showed a 53% majority of Americans that either want to withdraw funding from the War in Iraq or deny funds for the troop surge.
As we pointed out, Couric and CBS, using a deceptive slight-of-hand maneuver with the poll numbers, twisted the results to say something they actually did not say at all.
Since that episode of the Couric propaganda fiction report on CBS, The Liberty Sphere has been watching the program very closely for more instances of Liberal bias.
We found it yet again on Monday evening.
Couric's lead story Monday evening was the buy-out of a Texas coal mining company by a corporation known for its 'green' sensitivity. Supposedly this was earth-shattering news, in a manner of speaking, since this is reportedly the first time an environmentalist-friendly company has bought out one of the dark, evil, and sinister companies that produce energy, heat, and cooling for most Americans by the use of fossil fuels.
The dreaded fossil fuels, of course, are the main reason the earth is warming, according to the Leftist propaganda of extremist environmentalist activists who wish to dismantle American free enterprise, capitalism, and individual freedom in the name of 'saving the environment.'
No matter that most of the good science that is based upon actual observable fact and a non-biased approach to considering the earth's climate history show no such thing.
Yet here again is Couric and CBS spouting their slanted 'news' in favor of those propagandists who wish to lay the blame for global warming squarely at the feet of mankind, so that government can then launch the single biggest attack on human freedom in the history of the world.
But this was not enough.
Couric's second story of the evening piggy-backed on the lead story about the Texas buy-out. This story, not surprisingly, focused upon Al Gore's environmentalist extremist film and its selection to receive an Academy Award on Sunday evening. The film was not selected as best motion picture, and yet, it merited a prime spot on Couric's show.
No mention was made of the film that won best picture.
Gore's hook, line, and sinker approach to the 'man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming' mantra has earned him the accolades of Hollywood, the European Union, Socialists, Communists, and every other nut-case on the planet who would love to impose their brave new world on American society and rob the citizens of liberty. It is no wonder, therefore, that one of Gore's comrades at arms in this siege, i.e. Katie Couric, would give him prime billing as the second story of the night on Monday evening's news broadcast.
I am sure that billionaire atheist and Democrat operative George Soros was very proud.
The Liberty Sphere will continue to monitor Couric's reports at CBS. We may even launch this as a regular feature of The Liberty Sphere and call it 'the Couric Watch.' Our intent is not simply to inform our readers about the spin doctors at CBS News but to underscore and attempt to understand this fascinating phenomenon--the thorough indoctrination of the public by a major news organization.
So stay tuned. There will be much more to come.
As we pointed out, Couric and CBS, using a deceptive slight-of-hand maneuver with the poll numbers, twisted the results to say something they actually did not say at all.
Since that episode of the Couric propaganda fiction report on CBS, The Liberty Sphere has been watching the program very closely for more instances of Liberal bias.
We found it yet again on Monday evening.
Couric's lead story Monday evening was the buy-out of a Texas coal mining company by a corporation known for its 'green' sensitivity. Supposedly this was earth-shattering news, in a manner of speaking, since this is reportedly the first time an environmentalist-friendly company has bought out one of the dark, evil, and sinister companies that produce energy, heat, and cooling for most Americans by the use of fossil fuels.
The dreaded fossil fuels, of course, are the main reason the earth is warming, according to the Leftist propaganda of extremist environmentalist activists who wish to dismantle American free enterprise, capitalism, and individual freedom in the name of 'saving the environment.'
No matter that most of the good science that is based upon actual observable fact and a non-biased approach to considering the earth's climate history show no such thing.
Yet here again is Couric and CBS spouting their slanted 'news' in favor of those propagandists who wish to lay the blame for global warming squarely at the feet of mankind, so that government can then launch the single biggest attack on human freedom in the history of the world.
But this was not enough.
Couric's second story of the evening piggy-backed on the lead story about the Texas buy-out. This story, not surprisingly, focused upon Al Gore's environmentalist extremist film and its selection to receive an Academy Award on Sunday evening. The film was not selected as best motion picture, and yet, it merited a prime spot on Couric's show.
No mention was made of the film that won best picture.
Gore's hook, line, and sinker approach to the 'man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming' mantra has earned him the accolades of Hollywood, the European Union, Socialists, Communists, and every other nut-case on the planet who would love to impose their brave new world on American society and rob the citizens of liberty. It is no wonder, therefore, that one of Gore's comrades at arms in this siege, i.e. Katie Couric, would give him prime billing as the second story of the night on Monday evening's news broadcast.
I am sure that billionaire atheist and Democrat operative George Soros was very proud.
The Liberty Sphere will continue to monitor Couric's reports at CBS. We may even launch this as a regular feature of The Liberty Sphere and call it 'the Couric Watch.' Our intent is not simply to inform our readers about the spin doctors at CBS News but to underscore and attempt to understand this fascinating phenomenon--the thorough indoctrination of the public by a major news organization.
So stay tuned. There will be much more to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)