Here they come folks, the tragedy pimps, using the Oklahoma tornado to push their global warming BS. As Limbaugh said on his show today, global warming, or climate change, is not at all about science, it is all about politics. And to moral retards like Barbara Boxer, all is fair in politics
Via Daily Caller:
California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer blamed the tornado that devastated Oklahoma on global warming during a Senate floor speech Tuesday, using the opportunity to push her own plan to tax carbon dioxide emissions.
“This is climate change,” Boxer said. “This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather: Not just hot weather, but extreme weather. When I had my hearings, when I had the gavel years ago — it’s been a while — the scientists all agreed that what we’d start to see was extreme weather.”
Of course, wild fires, hurricanes, and tornadoes are not new, they have been happening for a long long time, but, I guess these cretins will say anything as long as they can raise more revenue.
“Carbon could cost us the planet,” Boxer added, plugging her own carbon tax bill, co-sponsored by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. “The least we could do is put a little charge on it so people move to clean energy.”
See! Tornadoes will be sweeter and kinder if we all pay more for “clean energy”. Horse shit!
Speaking of great piles of feces, David Sirota is blaming the GOP for the tornado
With GOP-backed cuts to forecasting agency, experts warn future storms will go undetected and more lives lost.
Was the severe weather system culminating in yesterday’s Oklahoma City tornado intensified – or even created – by climate change? That question will almost certainly bebatted back and forth in the media over the next few days. After all, there is plenty of scientific evidence that climate change intensifies weather in general, but there remainlegitimate questions about how – and even if – it intensifies tornadoes in specific.
One thing, however, that shouldn’t be up for debate is whether or not we should be as prepared as possible for inevitable weather events like tornadoes. We obviously should be – but there’s an increasing chance that we will not be thanks to the manufactured crisis known as sequestration.
As the Federal Times recently reported, sequestration includes an 8.2 percent cut to the National Weather Service. According to the organization representing weather service employees, that means there is “no way for the agency to maintain around-the-clock operations at its 122 forecasting offices” and also means “people are going to be overworked, they’re going to be tired, they’re going to miss warnings.”
Summarizing the problem, the American Institute of Physics put it bluntly: “The government runs the risk of significantly increasing forecast error and, the government’s ability to warn Americans across the country about high impact weather events, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, will be compromised.”
See, it is all fair game for playing politics. EVERYTHING is to be blamed on your political opposites. No wonder ass hats like Sirota are always so nasty.
1.) The ACLU has a surprise for Harry Reid– Even the liberal-leaning organization doesn’t support his gun bill. TheDC’s Vince Coglianese reports:
“As Senate Democrats struggle to build support for new gun control legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union now says it’s among those who have ‘serious concerns’ about the bill. Those concerns have the capacity to prove a major setback to Sen. Harry Reid’s current gun bill, which includes language from earlier bills introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, a top lobbyist for the ACLU announced that the group thinks Reid’s current gun bill could threaten both privacy rights and civil liberties. … ’However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,’ he went on.”
When you have lost the ACLU……….
Democratic Sens. Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer will hold a news conference on Thursday to announce new legislation that would put a fee on carbon dioxide emissions to help fund green-energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.
The legislation would also compensate consumers for higher energy bills.In his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Obama threatened to use his executive authority if Congress failed to act on climate change.
“But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” Obama added. “I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”
I wonder where these geniuses think they will get the money to help us with the higher energy bills? The higher taxes ALWAYS soak the middle class and poor the most
Remember this masterful piece at Allergic to Bull There is lot to read and all of it is well worth your while, but let me highlight this part
And then there is the special case of Barack Obama. I say special because I can’t think of any other prominent individual whose pro-choice position is so radical that it so effectively cuts into his own position. First, for Obama, gun control is all about the children (see right):That’s an image from his press conference when he announced his executive orders and legislative proposals for gun control, and he made sure to surround himself with kids who wrote letters to him pleading for gun control. Also for free candy. Really mostly, for free candy. And yes, that is a joke, but a joke with a point. There is a reason why kids don’t vote: because they lack the maturity to deal with life as it is. For instance, I had two posts the other day talking about the relevance of rape, a crime that these kids probably don’t even know is a thing.And of course Obama declared in a weekly address that “If even one life can be saved, we have an obligation to try”:So if we can save one life, eh, Obama? Well, that is not what you thought when the issue came to infanticide. From Andrew McCarthy’s searing work on the subject:There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.The record, however, doesn’t lie.From later in the article:My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.In other words, these proposed laws would require doctors to try to save such a fetus’ life and naturally forbid all people from killing it. And indeed, this is not a matter of the choice of the mother. If the fetus is actually outside her body, and it can live, what consequence is it of hers? If she doesn’t want to raise it, I am sure many childless couples would be happy to adopt her baby. But that is what we are talking about: a baby, by the definition of all but the most radical.
The Lonely Conservative notes that the Left is going bat shit crazy over the NRA suggestion that we actually use armed police/guards/teachers to protect our kids in school, yet when Bill Clinton PUT armed guards in schools, there was no outrage at all. A classic case of Selective Outrage Syndrome
The other day Senator Barbara Boxer proposed turning our schools into mini police states patrolled by the National Guard. There was no outrage by the progressives or the media that I found. I also don’t recall much media outrage when former President Bill Clinton not only proposed, but also implemented putting armed guards in our schools. The internet and blogs were in their infancy at the time, so it’s possible that most progressives weren’t even aware of the policy, a policy thatPresident Obama cut funding for, by the way.
But when a similar proposal was made by the NRA outrage erupted immediately. My goodness, they’re suddenly concerned about what things cost! As if giving public workers rich benefit packages is more important than keeping our children safe. If only they had this much outrage over the budgets of our state and local governments.
Let’s get even more confusing. Clinton proposed more security for schools in the wake of the 1999 Columbine shooting. It turns out that Columbine High School did have an armed sheriff’s deputy on the scene the day of its tragic shooting spree. That deputy exchanged fire with one of the killers twice, drawing their attention away from killing unarmed teenagers. The deputy and his backup also helped organize the evacuation of students from the school. Though the deputy’s presence obviously did not stop the attack from happening, it likely did save many lives.
Let’s pile on even more confusion. The NRA today proposed protecting our children to a level similar to the way we protect our banks and many public buildings: With armed security. As we’ve established, this idea has been around for more than 12 years and was once proposed by a Democratic president. Many on the anti-gun left responded to today’s proposal not with a thoughtful rejoinder, but with calls to shoot Wayne LaPierre.
And yes, Columbine, and several other school shooting did happen while the assault weapons ban the Left wishes to bring back was in place, but the Left ignores that fact too. Why do I call Liberalism an ideology of convenience? This is why. They need no facts, just emotions to “know” something. They say a horrible event could have been stopped by a law. Yet when you point out that such a law did exist, and did not prevent such horrible events, they just repeat their disproved mantra. It is convenient to be able to “take a stand” and speak “truth to power” when you can use emotion, rather than reason. And it is convenient to say that to do something, anything is better than doing nothing. It is convenient because when that “something” fails, or even makes things worse through unintended consequences, think gun free zones here, you can feel better because you meant well. How convenient indeed!
So, that leaves what? 850 or so? Seriously, this guy has more baggage than adverbs, and THAT is a lot! The Lonely Conservative dishes on the latest
But this tidbit from Newt Gingrich’s past is another concern for GOP primary voters.
The legislation, the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989 (H.R. 1078) had 144 co-sponsors, the majority of which were liberal Democrats such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), then-Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). There were only 25 Republican co-sponsors, which included Rep. Gingrich.
The legislation, which never made it out of committee and was never voted on by House members, set a national goal of reducing carbon dioxide levels by at least 20 percent by the year 2000 “through a mix of federal and state energy policies,” as well as “the establishment of an International Global Agreement on the Atmosphere by 1992.”
In addition, the legislation’s summary includes the section “Title XI: World Population Growth.” That section states: “World Population Growth — Declares it is the policy of the United States that family planning services should be made available to all persons requesting them. Authorizes appropriations for FY 1991 through 1995 for international population and family planning assistance. Prohibits the use of such funds for: (1) involuntary sterilization or abortion; or (2) the coercion of any person to accept family planning services.
“Requests the President to initiate an international conference on population, and to seek an international agreement on population growth. Establishes a National Commission on Population, Environment, and Natural Resources to prepare reports and convene conferences. Terminates such Commission three years after the enactment of this Act.
To be perfectly fair, let us peek at the defense Team Gingrich is offering up
In an e-mail statement to CNSNews.com, Gingrich’s deputy press secretary, Michelle Selesky, said the former Speaker opposes an international agreement on population growth because “this would be a dangerous violation of sovereignty, and Speaker Gingrich would steadfastly oppose any international efforts to dictate or control population growth in sovereign states.”
Furthermore, “Newt supported a very limited aspect of the 1989 bill that promoted hydrogen energy research,” said Selesky. “This is consistent with his long support of aggressively developing American sources of energy, including American oil, natural gas, coal, and alternatives.”
He supported only a small part? Then why the Hell be a co-sponsor? If most of the bill went against Newt’s ideology, then he should not have had any part in it.Now, I realize no candidate is perfect, that is the way it goes. But these “imperfections” in Newt, and yes you too Mitt are starting to add up here. And yes, I know that my preferred candidate, Perry, is not perfect either. But most of his detractors will point out style point issues they have with him. Me? I can deal with the piss poor Gardasil executive order Perry issued, and the in-state tuition issue as well. On principles, Perry is really solid. I used to think Newt was too, but these skeletons keep popping up, and it reminds me that Newt is not the best option for the Republicans.