Layout Image

On Christmas Day, Dec. 25th of 2009, an “alleged” Muslim terrorist  tried to set off a bomb and bring down a passenger jet in an attempt to murder more than 250 people over Detroit, Michigan. Details of the event became clear faster than the response from the government. In fact it took three days for an official statement from the President, which tied the effort to a lone extremist. (wouldn’t want to rile up any sentiment among the followers of the ‘Religion of Hypersensitivity’ I suppose).  I don’t need to make any link to Islamic advocacy groups criticizing the terrorism attempt because they haven’t!

Subsequent news reports have tied the alleged suspect in the attempted bombing to al Qaeda and have reported that US intelligence was aware of the ‘attacker’ before the event. The criticism of both the Administration and the intelligence community began to roil across the internet and news media.

Then, on Dec. 29th, a panicked report of someone loose with a gun shuts down the Capitol for hours.

Given the above connections I could not help but paronoically think that the O administration might have contrived the “capitol shooter” to deflect criticism of the Administration’s handling of a real terrorist event. After all, we have recently seen DHS call attention to “right wing extremists” being a threat and equating Islamic extremism with Right Wing extremism.

Sorry, but I think a few nuts running amok in Western society are not near the concern that millions of radicalized Islamists should be.


I won’t deny that human activity may be a factor in the “climate change” debate but the discussion must also recognize non-human factors as well. Ian Pilmer presents, in the following videos, evidence to believe that Man is not as significant in altering climate as Al Gore and his disciples would have us believe. Enjoy!

(if you don’t have time to watch the videos, American Conservative University makes a podcast available for listening here)

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Categories : Climate Change
Comments (0)

Let me state up front that I am a skeptic of strictly “man caused” climate change – we may have some impact but solar activity and natural cycles deserve more credit in my opinion. That being said the issue of climate change will be the driving force behind the next attempt at immigration reform. I say this based on my below summary of a news story out of the Copenhagen climate summit and my thoughts that follow.

Climate Change Tent City?

Climate Change Tent City?

At the recent Copenhagen summit to discuss climate change, WorldNews reported on a “substantive paragraph” dealing with “adaptation to climate change” that is being considered for inclusion into any agreement out of the summit. The text of the paragraph is not released but the focus is on dealing with people impacted or displaced by the effects of climate change. A name for these displaced people started out as “climate refugees” but has been dropped and may be replaced by the phrase “climate change-induced displacees”.

There will be a demand to provide logistics and financial support for the “displacees” as well as international cooperation and the expectation that nations will open their borders to accept the “refugees”. Buried in the story are references to people affected by natural disasters, conflict and generalized violence. Estimates for people displaced by rising sea levels and natural disasters have grown from 50 million in 2010 up to as much as a billion by 2050.

Here is the complete WorldNews story.

A few thoughts occurred to me as I read this article.

  • - I’m certain these estimates made by “man-caused” climate change advocates will find a climate based cause for any disaster or conflict. Besides rising sea levels, any weather-related disaster and possibly earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tidal waves – almost any naturally occurring event – will be attributed to “man-caused” climate change. But beyond this, weak economies, civil unrest, tribal conflicts, genocide and other “man caused” -human suffering will be attributed to climate change for reasons such as food scarcity, lifestyle changes or just plain fear.
  • - As an example, when blaming economic suffering due to climate change, consider that when petroleum use is significantly reduced as desired by the climate change proponents the petroleum producing countries will suffer losses in revenue. Could they then claim economic hardship due to climate change and demand some of their population be accepted into other nations as “displacees”? Yeah, my combination of xenophobia and Islamophobia has reared its ugly head and I am imagining Jihadists moving into Western nations (their sworn enemies) under the guise of “climate change”.
  • - Climate “displacees” will move to developed, wealthier nations further burdening these nations beyond what the LDC’s (lesser developed countries) are expecting in payment for climate mitigation. Any agreements out of Copenhagen or any future climate change negotiations will likely require nations to revise immigration policies to favor “victims” of climate change.
  • - This increased influx of climate change migrants will accelerate the fracturing of the host societies because political correctness and multiculturalism will, as is the case now, provide accommodation rather than expect assimilation. The “displacees” will, with encouragement from climate change advocates, see themselves as “victims” and likely to be more strident in demanding concessions and services.
  • - The last attempt at major immigration reform in America was not passed with the contentious issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants being the biggest stumbling block. The next attempt at immigration reform will be pushed by both the advocates and potential “refugees” demanding amnesty as a condition because “climate change has made it impossible for them to return home”.

List of countries and territories by fertility rate – Wikipedia.

Countries by Fertility Rate

World Population by Nation – Wikipedia

Same Leftists, Different Protest

Same Leftists, Different Protest

Here again are a bunch of bussed-in protesters with prepared banners, slogans, chants demanding reductions in carbon output at the upcoming Copenhagen summit. I’d be curious to see the modes of travel, the lodging, the food consumption, and carbon footprint of this crowd.

And I’m guessing many of the attendees and the organizers are the same as those seen protesting WTO events or any other event where they can slam wealthy nations and demand “justice” for less wealthy nations. Actually I think they are looking more toward “vengeance”. And I don’t intend to wallow with them in their suicidal ideology.

Comments (0)

Optimum Population Trust, a UK-based organization, has a web site that promotes population control and even reduction to cut CO2 emissions and to reduce resource usage. A subject worthy of discussion but as you can see in the below BBC story they vomit the same talking points as the rest of the  ”climate change” community. A couple of points in the article were slightly disturbing yet not surprising:

  • “…reducing the number of people born in the US would make a big difference in achieving reductions in CO2 levels.” Sounds like a threat to me!
  • “…wealthy people can offset their own carbon emissions by funding contraceptive programmes in the developing world.” Again, the hypocrisy of “buying offsets”.  If we have to pay others for the program we should have some oversight and decision-making role, otherwise the funds would be lost to greed and graft, never reaching the intended beneficiaries.

To be honest, I’m glad to see climate-change advocates talk openly about population control. It lays bare more of their intent to control us!

BBC NEWS
Fund family planning ‘to cut CO2′

Meeting the demand for family planning in poor nations is a cheap and effective way to cut CO2 emissions, a new website initiative claims.

The UK-based Optimum Population Trust says human activity is exacerbating global warming and higher population levels mean higher emissions.

It asks people to fund contraception, saying it is better value than wind turbines, solar power or hybrid cars.

Critics would argue the analysis is too simplistic, a BBC correspondent says.

The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin says they could contend that reducing the number of people born in the US would make a big difference in achieving reductions in CO2 levels.

Our correspondent added that carbon emissions from people in most of sub-Saharan Africa are so low that they can barely be counted.

According to the OPT, every £4 spent on family planning saves one tonne of CO2.

It estimates that a similar reduction would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology.

It is promoting a scheme in which wealthy people can offset their own carbon emissions by funding contraceptive programmes in the developing world.

Story from BBC NEWS:


a UK-based organization, has a web site that promotes population control and even reduction to cut CO2 emissions and to reduce resource usage. A subject worthy of discussion but as you can see in the below BBC story they vomit that same talking points as the rest of the  ”climate change” community.
A couple of points in the article were slightly disturbing yet not surprising:
“…reducing the number of people born in the US would make a big difference in achieving reductions in CO2 levels.”
Sounds like a threat to me!
“…wealthy people can offset their own carbon emissions by funding contraceptive programmes in the developing world.”
Again, the hypocrisy of “buying offsets”. If we have to pay others for the program we should have some oversight and decision-making role.http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8392193.stm
Categories : Climate Change
Comments (0)

How many times have you seen a news broadcast on television or listened to one on radio where a report is made about a crime in which the perpetrator got away and the public is asked to provide any information that may lead to capture of the transgressor? The initial news report often tries to provide a physical description to help us in identifying the “suspect”. Now I appreciate law enforcement turning to you and me for help in the case because I don’t want criminals ruining our communities and lives but I have a complaint with regard to these news reports.

I think political correctness forces law enforcement to be too vague when providing a description of the person or persons being sought, which can hinder John Q’s ability to recognize the target. Most reported descriptions list “safe” attributes that won’t be viewed as profiling by those PC hyper-sensitives. We are told about height, weight in estimated pounds, hair color, gender, and last-known attire. Usually it is not until later in the search that additional details such as race, possibly a name and aliases, and even a photo are provided that any of us would really know who to look for. Screw sensitivities! How about giving us descriptors that make the pool of people being scrutinized even smaller.

Here is the kind of useless description I’m referring to:

“Suspect is male, medium height and weight, wearing blue jeans” – Oh, hey, I see him right over there with everyone else that looks like that.

Here are a few examples with attributes that might actually help:

“Suspect is 5’4″, 160 lbs, brown hair, has a gray coat on, and IS A REALLY UGLY BLACK MAN WITH A HAIRLIP” – might narrow things down.

“Suspect is 6’1″, 240 lbs, balding, wearing white sneakers, and CLEARLY IN NEED OF MAJOR DENTAL WORK, PLUS HE’S PIGEON-TOED” – could speed things up.

“Suspect is a short female, blond hair, wearing a red dress, HIDEOUSLY UGLY AND WITH ROPE BURNS FROM PREVIOUSLY ATTEMPTED SUICIDES” – a bit of help.

“Suspect is a white male, blond hair, wearing a t-shirt and sweatpants, and IS ALMOST LAUGHINGLY EFFEMINATE IN MANNER – got him!

This goes for attractive perps as well:

“Suspect is a tall, slender, brunette female, wearing a black leotard, and SO BUSTY AND HOT YOU’LL FORGIVE ME WHILST I CHUCK MY WEDDING VOWS” – at least provides focus.

Can’t we just be brutally honest from the get go? We’re not talking about profiling, we’re talking about a real, imperfect human being. I mean we are looking for a scumbag, not someone deserving of respect and concern for their feelings. We should be given no-holds barred descriptions that would make it obvious to anyone in sight of the shit-sack that “we got ‘em”! This would result in faster identification and faster apprehension, reducing the effort and costs expended by law enforcement – that’s our tax dollars.

Comments (0)