Barbara Boxer called out

Liberals do this all the time. Barbara Boxer gets called out for playing identity politics with an African American man who wants to be judged by the content of his character.

Obamacare legislation in the Senate effectively outlaws private health insurance

Well, he promised change:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854

FYI: This piece of crap legislation has already passed committee in the Senate
/

Convenient Truth: Global warming is totally BUNK

There just seems to be an amazing abundance of news out there these days debunking man-made global warming. Every day this crusade by Algore and his followers is more and more exposed for the scam that it is.

This quote by Australian Geologist Ian Plimer, who says modern environmentalism is driven by people who are "too wealthy", is very insightful:

‘When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’

Here are a couple of more articles providing more rational thought around the reality of "climate change".

Meet the Man Who has Exposed the Great Climate Change Con Trick

The Global Warming Debate

Damned Global Warming Skeptics
/

Plug-in electric cars

HA! I have been saying this for years....what good will it do to move from gasoline powered cars to electric cars? The power to charge the battery has to be generated in some way, so it just shifts the alleged problem somewhere else. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with coal-fired power, and more importantly, building new nuclear power plants to power our electrical grids, but this just shows that these grandiose solutions proposed by our politicians have not been thought through to the obvious conclusions. They are just soundbites, designed to support their "environmentally conscious" campaign persona.

Not So Fast With Those Electric Cars

Alternative Energy: A government report says reliance on electric cars will do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and may merely shift our dependence on foreign sources from one set of dictators to another.

It's a beautiful theory — highways full of electric cars emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants after being plugged into an outlet in our garages overnight. The problem, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, is that the effort may only shift the problem somewhere else.

"If you are using coal-fired power plants, and half the country's electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?" asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: "Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy."

The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%. If the feeling of saving the environment from driving an electric car causes people to drive more, that small amount of savings vanishes entirely.

On top of that, these little cars are deathtraps. I heard a story recently of a 19-year old girl in Houston driving her "Smart-car", who was killed when hit by a pickup. As you can imagine, the little Smart-car did not stand a chance. I'm guessing she would have walked away, had she been driving an SUV, or other vehicle of any substantial weight/size.

/

How to confuse an environmental activist

It's not hard to do. This past Sunday, I attended the Vans Warped Tour in Dallas, with my 14-year old daughter, and her friend and friend's dad. There were booths set up all over the grounds of the music festival, and as you can imagine, there was a presence from environmental activist groups, including Greenpeace.

I stopped by the Greenpeace booth a couple of times. Since I was not dressed in any way that would give away my status as a "Conservative Activist", I decided to pretend I was a militant environmental wacko (with a twist, of course). My first visit to the Greenpeace booth was simple. I just asked the guy if he was really in Greenpeace, and told him I had once seen the Rainbow Warrior (Greenpeace ship) in the harbor in Baltimore. He was impressed by this, and it seemed to greatly enhance my credibility, as he had never himself seen the ship.

I asked him what they were doing to save the environment, and expressed my disappointment with President Obama and his inaction on taking real steps to improve the environment. Both dudes in the booth quickly agreed, and dogpiled Obama, calling him an "actor" who just said what it takes to get elected. I was surprised with how quickly they turned on Obama, but I kept pressing on, and punctuating my sentences with the word "man", and trying to sound disgruntled. I bashed Obama several times, questioning his motivation on the recent climate change bill that had passed the House, and this seemed to fire them up even more. They really bit when I speculated the "outsourcing" of jobs and manufacturing to countries with less regulation, and that that would actually cause MORE pollution and CO2 emissions worldwide, exacerbating the problem.

Later, I came back by the booth, and noticed the solar panel next to the tent. By this time, there was a chick working the booth, and the other two dudes were gone. I asked her if it was a functioning solar panel, and she replied that it was. I asked her if the entire tour was run on solar energy. She said it was not, and looked a little sheepish and seemed ashamed. Being a concerned citizen of the world, I pressed on.....

At this point she was obviously feeling pressured. My next step was to inquire about the total carbon footprint of the tour. She quickly admitted that she did not know, and was eager to refer me to the "tour information booth" down the aisle. She did tell me though, that she was pretty sure that the tour was being powered by biofuels. This was the opening I had been looking for. At the mention of biofuels, I got visibly angry, and went on a rant about biofuels causing starvation in the third world. It was something like this: "How can freaking Americans be so arrogant to think they have a right to starve these poverty stricken populations just so we can feel better about our carbon emissions? Besides that, the demand for biofuels is resulting in the razing of the rainforests, as farmers in other countries rush to grow these crops." I went on a verbal rampage for as long as I could, and then stormed off in a "rage" as fast as possible to get in the clear before I broke out into uncontrollable laughter.

This mission was so much fun, that I tried (unsuccessfully) to find the PETA booth to see what kind of trouble I could cause there.

I love outdoor concerts, even in the heat of the Texas Summer (we were blessed with a cool day of about 90 degrees this time), and I enjoyed seeing all the bands, and the people watching, of course. I was there for the music, and for the time with my daughter. Harassing enviro-nuts was just a bonus.

"The Science is settled"

Isn't that what they keep telling us? The science is settled right? "Scientific consensus."

If that's the case, why do the global warming alarmists have to keep muzzling dissent? This time it's a polar bear expert, banned from speaking at the "Polar Bear Specialist Group" meeting (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission). Why would they ban Dr. Mitchell Taylor, who has been researching polar bears in the Arctic for over 30 years? Simply because of his views on human-induced climate change. He agrees that the Arctic is warming, but believes it to be due to ocean currents and wind, NOT by rising CO2. He also notes that during the past 30 years, polar bear populations have GROWN, not declined. For these positions, the polar bear expert is barred from speaking at the polar bear meeting.

I guess if they can silence the dissenters (does that sound kind of "Soviet"?), then they can maintain "scientific consensus", whatever that is.

(Note: The image of the polar bear above has been widely used to demonstrate the plight of the poor polar bears, being stranded and destroyed due to human (American) pillaging of the planet with noxious CO2. This image was actually taken by a photographer who says the bears were not in danger, but were "playing" on an ice flow.)
/

Global warming is a scam

It has long been my contention that anthropogenic "global warming" or "climate change" is a complete scam, a scare tactic designed to get us to hand over more regulatory power to the government. Further supporting my assertion, it has now come to light, that President Obama's EPA actively suppressed dissenting scientific opinion within the agency, due to the fact that "the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision." Thirty-year EPA veteran Alan Carlin was the primary author of the 98-page report, which warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

Our government is now silencing dissenting scientific opinion, while they continue to claim "scientific consensus" as the rationale for massive regulation and taxation of CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gases".

More from CBSnews.com:

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

Further Obama news today: He introduced new "lighting standards" to the nation intended to reduce energy consumption by using all compact fluorescent light bulbs, starting in the White House. Unfortunately for Obama, this "example" was a step taken by President Bush a few years ago, in all White House light fixtures except chandeliers. Just view this as a first step towards Federal regulation of what light bulbs we are allowed to use.

Got to go....running to Wal-Mart to stock up on incandescent bulbs.

VIDEO UPDATE: Dr. Carlin interviewed on Fox News

/