Comic Relief: Mini AOC is back! Parody Videos about Climate Change Hoax

Comic Relief:

Mini AOC is back! Parody Videos about Climate Change Hoax

The child actor who starred in a series of parody videos as “Mini AOC” is back, after having been bullied off the internet with death threats in July.

This brave, cute little gal gives welcome comic relief in this insane world. Click on the CC in lower right hand corner for close captions so you don’t miss a word!

 

Mini AOC is back with ‘climate apocalypse in 12 years’ parody video

By Thomas Lifson

The child actor who starred in a series of parody videos as “Mini AOC” is back, after having been bullied off the internet with death threats in July, as Fox News reported back then.

FOX:

The 8-year-old child actor who went viral for impersonating Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, is no longer going to make videos due to death threats and harassment she and her family have received.

Earlier this year, Ava Martinez, known as “Mini AOC,” brought joy to her fans with several videos poking fun at the socialist darling, collecting millions of views on social media.

However, the fun came to a screeching halt on Wednesday when Martinez’s family announced that she would no longer be impersonating Ocasio-Cortez and that all the videos created would be removed.

Since children in political videos are now such a hot topic, or maybe “inspired” by Greta Thunberg’s P.R. blitz, or maybe because the death threat thugs have been apprehended, Mini AOC is back.  And her comeback video is better than ever.  Eat your heart out, Greta!

Mini AOC is back with ‘climate apocalypse in 12 years’ parody video

Advertisements

History Facts: Climate Change Theory History Timeline

History Facts:

Climate Change Theory History Timeline

Conflicting Views on Climate Change: Fire and Ice

This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science. Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn’t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame.

Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide whether we face an ice age or warming

By R. Warren Anderson and Dan Gainor

Global Research Editor’s Note

This article first published in May 2006 provides an interesting review of the debate on Climate Change.

It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”

Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

Global Cooling: 1895-1932

Fear spread through the print media over the next three decades. A few months after the sinking of the Titanic, on Oct. 7, 1912, page one of the Times reported, “Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”

Scientists knew of four ice ages in the past, leading Professor Nathaniel Schmidt of Cornell University to conclude that one day we will need scientific knowledge “to combat the perils” of the next one.

The same day the Los Angeles Times ran an article about Schmidt as well, entitled “Fifth ice age is on the way.” It was subtitled “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.”

That end-of-the-world tone wasn’t unusual. “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada,” declared a front-page Chicago Tribune headline on Aug. 9, 1923. “Professor Gregory” of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.”

Then on Sept. 18, 1924, The New York Times declared the threat was real, saying “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age.”

Global Warming: 1929-1969

Today’s global warming advocates probably don’t even realize their claims aren’t original. Before the cooling worries of the ’70s, America went through global warming fever for several decades around World War II.

The nation entered the “longest warm spell since 1776,” according to a March 27, 1933, New York Times headline. Shifting climate gears from ice to heat, the Associated Press article began “That next ice age, if one is coming … is still a long way off.”

One year earlier, the paper reported that “the earth is steadily growing warmer” in its May 15 edition. The Washington Post felt the heat as well and titled an article simply “Hot weather” on August 2, 1930.

That article, reminiscent of a stand-up comedy routine, told readers that the heat was so bad, people were going to be saying, “Ah, do you remember that torrid summer of 1930. It was so hot that * * *.”

The Los Angeles Times beat both papers to the heat with the headline: “Is another ice age coming?” on March 11, 1929. Its answer to that question: “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer.”

Global Cooling: 1954-1976

The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
’Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river

— The Clash “London Calling,” released in 1979

The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s.

Three months before, on January 11, The Washington Post told readers to “get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come,” in an article titled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age.” The article quoted climatologist Reid Bryson, who said “there’s no relief in sight” about the cooling trend.

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoon

Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a “Science Writing Award” from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,” Fortune announced in February 1974.

The New York Times noted that in 1972 the “mantle of polar ice increased by 12 percent” and had not returned to “normal” size.

Was the ice melting at record levels, as the headline stated, or at a level seen decades ago, as the first line mentioned?

On Sept. 14, 2005, the Times reported the recession of glaciers “seen from Peru to Tibet to Greenland” could accelerate and become abrupt.

This, in turn, could increase the rise of the sea level and block the Gulf Stream. Hence “a modern counterpart of the 18,000-year-old global-warming event could trigger a new ice age.”

Government Comes to the Rescue

Mankind managed to survive three phases of fear about global warming and cooling without massive bureaucracy and government intervention, but aggressive lobbying by environmental groups finally changed that reality.

The Kyoto treaty, new emissions standards and foreign regulations are but a few examples.

Global Warming: 1981-Present and Beyond

The media have bombarded Americans almost daily with the most recent version of the climate apocalypse.

Global warming has replaced the media’s ice age claims, but the results somehow have stayed the same – the deaths of millions or even billions of people, widespread devastation and starvation.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times wrote a column that lamented the lack of federal spending on global warming.

2005— New Term: “Climate Change”

“We spend about $500 billion a year on a military budget, yet we don’t want to spend peanuts to protect against climate change,” he said in a Sept. 27, 2005, piece.

Kristof’s words were noteworthy, not for his argument about spending, but for his obvious use of the term “climate change.” While his column was filled with references to “global warming,” it also reflected the latest trend as the coverage has morphed once again.

The two terms are often used interchangeably, but can mean something entirely different.

The latest threat has little to do with global warming and has everything to do with … everything.

The latest predictions claim that warming might well trigger another ice age.

Conclusion

What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious?

Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can’t possibly be accurate.

For ordinary Americans to judge the media’s version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.

Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.

It is time for the news media to admit a consistent failure to report this issue fairly or accurately, with due skepticism of scientific claims.

Recommendations

It would be difficult for the media to do a worse job with climate change coverage. Perhaps the most important suggestion would be to remember the basic rules about journalism and set aside biases — a simple suggestion, but far from easy given the overwhelming extent of the problem.

Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:

“Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

“Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.”

“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”

Some other important points include:

Don’t Stifle Debate:

Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn’t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.

People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.

Don’t Ignore the Cost:

Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton’s term.

Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.

Report Accurately on Statistics:

Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “20th Century Climate Not So Hot,” “determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.

Bibliography

For sources click here

To read the rest of this excellent article, please visit:

Conflicting Views on Climate Change: Fire and Ice

Remember the fable of “Chicken Little?” See this related post for an amusing view of today’s hysterical journalists.

Science Facts, Global Warming Hoax, and a Fable with a Moral

Learn more about the forgotten Scientific Method Here

 

Political Cartoon: Exploitation of Children

Political Cartoon:

Exploitation of Children

Child Abuse

indoctrination of youth-climate changeIt should be considered child abuse that our educators are indoctrinating and brainwashing our kids with extremist left-wing views in the name of saving the planet. Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

Political Cartoon: Carbon Tax and Climate Change

Political Cartoon:

Carbon Tax and Climate Change

In their lust to rule their own world, modern liberals long ago decided to cast aside the axioms that constitute absolute truth.

French Fries

After deadly riots, France has scraped it’s “Carbon Tax”. Many leftists are calling for a Carbon tax here in the U.S. but say little as to how that will ultimately lower CO2s. Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

Climate Chains

Many big government advocates want to use climate change as an excuse to raise huge taxes on its citizens. It’s working so well for France. Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

Scientific Facts: Truth about Climate Change, Climate Change Hoax

Scientific Facts:

Truth about Climate Change, Climate Change Hoax

Lunacy from the Climate Stack

Rush Limbaugh

In science there is no consensus because scientific reality is not up for a vote.

Not Scientific Fact

Now to the Climate Change Stack. I’ve been alluding to this, and here’s the value of this. You know, when you boil it down, folks, what is climate change? Climate change is a political issue. It is not scientific fact. It is not settled science. It requires them to say they have a “consensus of scientists” that agree that X = Y = Z.

But in science there is no consensus because scientific reality is not up for a vote.

  • Water is H2O. It’s not something else.
  • The earth is round, it’s not flat, and if somebody thinks it’s flat and you put it up for a vote, it doesn’t mean that the earth is round because there’s a consensus of scientists who say so. It’s round because it is and it has been established and proven scientifically.

Well, climate change can’t be proven scientifically because the predictions of it say it will not happen for the next 30 to 40 years. It’s all computer models.

There is no empirical data.

There is none. These people don’t realize it but they tell us climate change is gonna happen the next 30 to 50 years, maybe even the end of this century.

 

Other Climate Change Hoax Lunacies

STUDY: Concern Over Climate Change Linked to Depression, Anxiety — ‘Restless nights, feelings of loneliness and lethargy.

Cleaning Up Air Pollution May Strengthen Global Warming.”

FOXNews: CNN Claim that an Unmonitored Asteroid Could Slam into Earth During Government Shutdown is Debunked

Wikipedia Censorship

Wikipedia Erases Record of Accomplished Scientist — ‘Censored’ for His Intelligent Design Position

 

Science Facts: US exit avoids Big Problems in the Paris Climate Agreement that are Bad for America

Science Facts:

US exit avoids Big Problems in the Paris Climate Agreement that are Bad for America

Every Bad Thing We Will Avoid By Rejecting the Paris Climate Agreement

The biggest cause of “Global Warming” is from the Hot Air of politicians, not from hardworking Americans. ~C.D.

John Carney

The president formally announced this week that the U.S. will exit the Paris climate agreement, a move that will have negligible impact on the environment but will have major benefits for the U.S. economy.

The Paris climate agreement was deeply flawed from its start. It was legally and constitutionally suspect, based on politics rather than science, and contained unrealistic goals. It promised not only a dramatic expansion of the administrative state and a huge increase in the regulatory burden on American businesses, it threatened to put the brakes on U.S. economic output at a time when most economists think the U.S. will struggle to achieve even a meager two percent growth.

It’s likely that it was already acting as a drag on the U.S. economy. After President Barack Obama unofficially committed the U.S. to the Paris agreement, businesses began preparing for its impact. Knowing that it would diminish U.S. economic output, businesses invested less and directed more investment toward less-productive technology to meet the climate deal’s mandates. Banks and financiers withdrew capital from sectors expected to suffer under the climate deal and pushed it toward those expected to benefit. A classic example of regulation-driven malinvestment.

The Paris climate agreement was adopted on December 12, 2015 at the conclusion of the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference. Parties to the agreement are expected to begin taking measures to reduce emissions in 2020, mainly by enacting rules that sharply reduce carbon emissions. Countries are supposed to publicly announce “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to combat climate change and periodically report on their progress.  The Obama administration announced the U.S. would commit to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, a quarter of which was supposedly achievable by the implementation of the previous administration’s legally-questionable Clean Power Plan.

To get the rest of the way, the U.S. would have to make major investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner motor vehicles. This likely explains why the Paris climate deal was so popular with many in Silicon Valley and many on Wall Street. It promised a bonanza of spending and investment, most likely subsidized by taxpayers, in technologies that wouldn’t otherwise be attractive. It was practically calling out for making self-driving, solar powered cars mandatory.

Dropping out of the agreement will let the U.S. avoid several deleterious effects of the agreement.

1.Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.

2.Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoon

3.Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.

4.Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big Business. Big businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.

5.Making America Poorer Again.  A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less. 

6.Much Poorer. The overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.

The Paris deal was, in short, a disaster for America and a nothing-burger for climat

Truth Matters: Science Facts vs. Climate Change Hoax; Protesters Paid to Riot; Clinton Uranium Deal

Truth Matters:

Science Facts vs. Climate Change Hoax; Protesters Paid to Riot; Clinton Uranium Deal

Science Facts vs. Climate Change Hoax Update

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: This is a pure fantasy. This is pure fantasy. There is nothing of substance here. The headline alone: “Al Gore’s New Group Demands $15 Trillion To Fight Global Warming.” Fifteen trillion to fight global warming.

Now, in a sane world this would constitute such extreme overreach that the person behind this request or claim would be forever discredited. Fifteen trillion to fight climate change? The U.S. national debt is $19 trillion. Now, Algore and his group — by the way, who is Algore’s group? Well, it says here they’re a group of executives, as in CEOs who want to fight global warming, “has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.”

Six hundred billion a year. This is multiple countries spending $600 billion a year for 20 years, total $15 trillion. Not companies. Countries. Algore and his group are asking the governments of the world to give him $15 trillion, him and his group. That’s what they’re asking for. They’re making no bones about it. Give us 15 trill. Yeah, what are you gonna do with it? “Well, we’re gonna fight climate change.” How you gonna do that? “Well, we’re gonna invest in all kinds of new technology, deploy solar panels and we’re gonna do electric cars and we’re gonna have windmills and whatever the hell else is green energy.”

Do you realize the solar panel industry itself, you want to talk about fraud. The amount of energy that is created, produced by solar panels is so tiny, it’s immeasurable, and if you have a cloudy day, you’re stuck. I look at Apple, and I know Algore’s on the board out there and they’ve got a social justice warrior for CEO. And they’ve got as one of their executives Obama’s former EPA director, Lisa Jackson, and they’re building that giant new spaceship campus out there. And on the roof of every building in this complex is solar panels. And I’m here to tell you that the vast majority of that is image and marketing.

Do you know what happens when a solar panel wears out? Do you have any idea how large these things are? Do you know what disposing them consists of? Do you know the absolute mess, the polluted mess getting rid of a bunch of them? How come the solar industry, despite massive expenditures like this and like Apple’s big building out there and all these government subsidies and programs, why isn’t the solar industry profitable?

I mean, this is one of the biggest scams. But, man, it works because it gets right to the heart of young Millennials. And all they need, all Millennials need is the belief that an entity, a company, an individual, is trying and is committed to saving the planet. Whether it works or not doesn’t matter a hill of beans, because remember, nothing is authentic anymore. And there is no authority that’s respected, so all that matters is the image that you can create for yourself. And the marketing in which you can engage that tells your story, which is your commitment to saving the planet.

Like all of liberalism, you don’t have to do anything. You don’t have to make one ounce of progress to actually saving anything. You just have to convince people that you’re trying, and they love you, and they think you are perfect. And then somebody like me comes along and tries to tell the truth about it, and I am demonized and ripped to shreds at having no soul and having no heart, having no compassion, and having no concern. And all I am is trying to ensure that people do not fall for scam after scam after scam and lie after lie after lie because the more people that fall for these things, the bigger the government’s gonna get.

The more people fall for this, the more freedom you’re gonna sacrifice to government under the premise that your freedom is what’s caused the problem. Your freedom to buy the car you want to buy. Your freedom to set your thermostat where you want to set it. Your freedom to eat whatever you want to eat, all of these freedoms have led to this crisis. And you must be dialed back. And if you dial back on your own, we will reward you and provide for you redemption from the sins you have committed against the planet.

And people suck that up and buy into that faster than you can say, “You’re being scammed.” And that’s what all this is, $15 trillion. And Gore’s group even has a name: the Energy Transitions Commission. “The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims ‘additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge’ … ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.”

 

Teach your family critical thinking about scientific method vs. evolutionary theory

 

George Soros, financier of riots and BLM

The Washington Post Writes in Praise of Paid Protesters

Ed Klein: Soros, Liberal Billionaires Behind ‘Sometimes Violent’

Billionaire Democratic fundraisers are pouring “tons of money” into groups organizing “sometimes violent” protests around the country against President Donald Trump, according to \writer Ed Klein.

In an interview aired Sunday with radio host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable,” Klein charged the protest funding from “left-wingers” includes payment to “outside agitators.”

 

How to discern truth in news

 

Truth Matters:

Truth about Clinton Uranium Deal: Clintons handed over control of U.S. Uranium to Russia

Art Moore

Whistleblower Magazine, April 2017 (WB)

Russia’s acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where Canadian mining financier Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal. Bill Clinton, strategically, was at his side, the New York Times noted.

Giustra had wanted a large uranium concession in Kazakhstan but ha never been able to get it from the country’s repressive dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

“Bill Clinton shows up, declares at a press conference that Nazarbayev is a wondervul leader, should actually lead an international human rights organization,” says Peter Schweizer, [author of Clinton Cash]. “And lo and behold, a couple of days later, Nazarbayev gives Frank Giustra this uranium concession. A few weeks after that, Bill Clinton’s Clinton Foundation gets more than $30 million from Frank Giustra.” WB,24

While the U.S. gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only about 20 percent of the  uranium it needs, according to Marin Katusa, author of The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.

Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern about the Uranium One deal. Two more began pushing legislation to kill i, including Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wy., who wrote to President Obama, saying it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

The Times observed: “Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the Cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton—whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.”

Two months later, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States began its review.

[T]he deal was approved in October after, the Times said, citing two people involved, “a relatively smooth process.” WB, 25

 

Teach your Family the Truth not found in Public Schools.

Government Censorship vs. Internet Freedom

Ajit Pai Calls Out the Left on Their Plan to Control the Internet

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Ajit Pai is the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He is a wonderful man, very, very smart, and is prepared now to roll back elements of Title II of the communication law, which is popularly known as net neutrality. Net neutrality is a total creation of left-wing politics, and it has many lies, many fraudulent notions about it, such as the internet will only be free and open when government is regulating it.

PAI: Throughout the discussion that is to come, you will hear from the other side that Title II is the only way to preserve a free and open internet. Let me be clear. This is a lie. For decades before 2015, we had a free and open internet. Indeed, the free and open internet developed and flourished under light-touch regulation. We weren’t living in some digital dystopia before the partisan imposition of a massive plan hatched in Washington saved all of us from ourselves. The next argument you are going to hear is that Title II is necessary to protect free speech. That’s right. Some will argue that government control is the key to your ability to express yourself on the internet.

PAI: Consider, for example, the leading special interest in favor of Title II. A spectacularly misnamed Beltway special interest called “Free Press.” It’s cofounder and current board member makes no effort to hides true agenda. While he says that we’re not at the point yet where we can completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies, he admits that — and I quote — “The ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.” And who would assume control of the internet? Well, the government, of course. The overall goal, as he put it, “was to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”

 

Push back against Fascist stifling of Free Press and Speech

Truth Zone: Science Facts, Donald Trump vs. Climate Change Hoax

Truth Zone:

Science Facts, Donald Trump vs. Climate Change Hoax

Trump: The Left Just Lost The War On Climate Change

James Delingpole

Donald Trump isn’t just skeptical about global warming. He is what the alarmists would call a full-on climate change “denier”.

Donald Trump Tweets:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air – not the same old climate change (global warming) bulls**t! I am tired of hearing this nonsense.

 

RushGlobalWarmingObamaNo world leader has ever been this outspoken on climate change. The only other one to have come close to this position was former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott – but he just didn’t have the support base to maintain it and was ousted in a coup staged by one of the climate alarmist establishment, Malcolm Turnbull.

But with a climate skeptic running the most powerful nation in the world, the $1.5 trillion per annum climate change industry is going to start to unravel big time.

A Trump presidency is likely to be good news for fossil fuels (and heavy industry that needs cheap energy to survive); and very bad news for renewables.

chickenlittle2To get an idea of the horrors to come for the greenies, look at how they reacted to the prospect of his new Environmental Protection Agency Dismantler-in-Chief Myron Ebell.

Ebell is an old friend of mine who works on climate and energy issues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The fact that he’s an old friend of mine probably tells you all you need to know about where he stands on global warming.

Here’s how Newsweek views him:

Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief, and he revels in it, crowing in his biography that he’s been called one of the leading “misleaders” on climate change and “villain of the month” by one environmental group. David Goldston, a policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, says Ebell “doesn’t believe in climate change and wants to reverse the advances we’ve had in environmental protection and decimate—if not utterly destroy—the Environmental Protection Agency.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ebell’s employer, “has done everything it can politically and through litigation to block any forward movement on climate and to try to harass anybody who is trying to get forward movement,” Goldston says.

Ebell is also the chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, more than two dozen nonprofit groups “that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies,” according to the coalition’s website. Those positions line up nicely with Trump’s goals, which include “saving” the coal industry, reviving the Keystone XL oil pipeline and expanding offshore oil drilling.

Ebell has attacked nearly every aspect of Obama’s environmental policies and accomplishments. He has said that the president’s decision in September to sign the Paris climate accord—which commits nations to sharp reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change—was “clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate’s authority” because treaties need approval by two-thirds of the Senate. (The White House argued that it was an agreement, not a treaty.) In a speech in August at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump said he would cancel the agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. climate change programs.

chickenlittle1Yup, greenies. That climate change gravy train you’ve been riding these last four decades looks like it’s headed for a major, Atlas-Shrugged-style tunnel incident…

 

Trump: The Left Just Lost The War On Climate Change