The Weather Channel is now indoctrinating children to lecture to their parents about so-called “global warming.” But here are some inconvenient facts for these left-wing alarmists:
The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim — from A to Z — the promoters of manmade climate fears are falling short or going in the opposite direction.
- Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming.
- The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
- Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
- Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.
- Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
- Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
- So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
- A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’
- 2016 Arctic sea ice was 22 percent greater than the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade.’
- Deaths due to extreme weather have declined dramatically.
- Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.
Have climate change skeptics lost the climate debate?
No! Climate skepticism enjoys huge popularity in polling data, and every time a climate bill has come before the U.S. Congress it has failed to pass. There never was any real climate debate! One of the key reasons climate fear proponents don’t want to debate is what happened during a pivotal high-profile debate in 2007 in New York City, where skeptics were voted the clear winners against global warming proponents.
NASA’s Gavin Schmidt appeared so demoralized at losing that debate that he announced debates equally split between believers in a climate ‘crisis’ and scientific skeptics are probably not “worthwhile” to ever agree to again. And climate change promoters listened, with debates becoming rarer and rarer.
In fact, instead of engaging in debates, prominent climate activists now call for jailing skeptics. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., declared he wanted to jail his climate skeptics. “They ought to be serving time for it,” Kennedy said in 2014.
For more, click here:
Former Arizona Senator Carolyn Allen has died at the age of 78, after suffering many years from the scourge of rheumatoid arthritis.
The late senator was hailed as a heroine by the left-stream flag carrier for our state, The Arizona Republic, and leftists on both sides of the political aisle. Allen was praised for her support of the arts and for warring against conservatives.
Allen also deserves credit for helping Democrat Janet Napolitano defeat conservative Matt Salmon in the 2002 governor’s election. She helped suppress Republican support for Salmon in Scottsdale by criticizing him in public, and he lost by one percent of the vote. Napolitano, who spent Arizona into massive debt, over-performed among Republicans in Scottsdale and that made the difference in her election.
Planned Parenthood lost a great friend in Allen. In a state legislative biography booklet, she described herself as a “Planned Parenthood activist.”
Intolerant of her opponents, Allen once saw the executive director of Arizona Right to Life in the state Senate lobby and bluntly exclaimed, “I didn’t know they allowed crooks in here.”
Allen was also a friend of Big Government, amnesty and homosexual pressure groups. While she faithfully clung to her “Republican Party” affiliation, it was the GOP platform principles she distained.
Amid a long absence from the legislature due to illness, The Arizona Conservative expressed concern about her constituents being disenfranchised and called on Allen to resign and devote herself to getting well. She later sent an email to our editor threatening him with physical harm.
The former chairwoman of the GOP legislative district in Scottsdale exhorted Allen to train up current Secretary of State Michelle Reagan, then a state representative. But Reagan was already comfortably established in Planned Parenthood’s abortion camp.
Conservatives repeatedly tried to beat Allen at election time, but the liberals in Scottsdale kept re-electing her until she retired from public office.
By Tony Perkins
Last night was supposed to belong to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But the biggest story of the first debate wasn’t the candidates answering the questions — it was the person asking them. In one of the most talked-about plots of the first head-to-head, moderator Lester Holt seemed intent on making the debate a three-person affair — injecting himself with almost as many challenges to Trump as the person officially opposing him. For most of the night, the Republican nominee was fending off not one — but two — attackers, repeatedly put on the defensive with topics that had nothing to do with the major issues facing America.
Meanwhile, the former Secretary of State, who’s probably spent as much time under investigation by Congress as she did as a Member of it, skated by virtually unscathed by Holt’s one-sided fact-checking. While he fiercely pressed Trump on his tax returns and concerns over President Obama’s birthplace, he couldn’t spare a single question on the corruption of the Clinton Foundation, her role in Benghazi, or the intentional deletion of tens of thousands of sensitive emails, or her outrageous “basket of deplorables” comment. Social media lit up with criticism for the NBC anchor, who many accused of shilling for the Clintons.
Holt’s bias is difficult to argue when you consider that he interrupted Trump 41 times demanding clarification — six times the amount he interrupted Clinton (seven). He “emerged as bruised and partisan,” The Hill argued. “Holt entered the evening largely respected as non-partisan. He [exits] as the toast of left-leaning media…” Part of the problem was Holt’s lack of focus. At a time when America is dealing with terror attacks on our own soil, a military in complete disarray, and a culture melting down before our very eyes, voters deserved to hear about more important things than Trump’s tax returns.
As for the actual substance of the debate, viewers were probably surprised to see a more restrained version of Donald Trump than they’re used to. Trump landed plenty of good jabs on America’s devastating trade and Iranian deals, but sidestepped some key opportunities to go on offense, especially when it came to Clinton’s email scandal — which made up a whopping 15 seconds of the hour and a half event. “I will release my tax returns — against my lawyer’s issues — when she releases her 33,000 emails that have been deleted,” he said. It was almost surreal, then, when the former Secretary of State tried to talk about the importance of cyber security — after committing one of the most dangerous breaches of it in U.S. history. “We are not going to sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our private-sector information or our public-sector information,” Clinton had the audacity to declare, after risking countless lives with her own carelessness on top-secret emails.
The real estate mogul’s biggest payoff came in the first 30 minutes when he assumed complete control of the economic issues, hammering back on the Left’s prosperity-is-evil doctrine. Of course, the reason liberals hate personal success is because it makes people less reliant on the government they’re desperate to grow. Wisely, Trump refused to run from his success and instead embraced it as an example of what’s possible when Americans are left (unburdened by Washington) to pursue their own ingenuity. Clinton, meanwhile, was all but drowning in her disgust of the more fortunate, alienating plenty of voters along the way with her mockery of the trickle-down economics made famous by Ronald Reagan.
Like the ghost of former Democratic candidate Walter Mondale, she recycled old talking points about the ineffectiveness of the approach (which happened to produce three times as many net jobs as President Obama’s debt-funded “recovery”). Then she continued her party’s push to make government the unofficial police of income equality. That’s not only a terrible idea, but an unnecessary one, as author Arthur Brooks points out in his book Who Really Cares. Combing through piles of financial data, he found that the 30 percent of Americans who think the government should do little or nothing about economic inequality gave away, on average, four times more of their income than the 43 percent who said the government should do something. And the majority of those Americans are religious. Conservatives — the same ones who oppose this redistribution of wealth — are among the most generous people on earth. But contrary to Hillary Clinton, they call what they give to churches contributions, and what they give the government, taxes.
It was one of the many profound differences in philosophy on display last night. Another was the role of the judicial system. In a largely overlooked section of the debate, the Yale Law School graduate declared that the courts had struck down the Stop-and-Frisk program because it “did not do what it needed to do.” “Stop-and-frisk,” she insisted, “was found to be unconstitutional, in part, because it was ineffective.” As Secretary Clinton well knows, however, such a simplistic characterization of the law based on the specific circumstances in one case is not accurate; the procedure is perfectly legal in many situations. Secretary Clinton owes the American voter an honest assessment of the problems she attempts to describe – as these voters are already weary of activist judges of dishonest politicians.
By the end of the night, if voters wanted a clear contrast, they found it. In one candidate, they have a continuation of the last eight years. In the other, an agent of change who terrifies the Left. Let’s pray America chooses wisely. For more on the stark differences between the two candidates, check out FRC Action’s updated presidential voter guide, available here. For more on my reaction from inside the debate hall, make sure to follow me on Twitter @TPerkins
Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton claims progressivism is the better plan for business. That’s what he actually told the Phoenix Business Journal.
It seems that ever since the last time a haboob passed through Phoenix area, the mayor’s vision and ability to reason have been severely clouded!
Obviously, the mayor has not been able to see the moving trucks coming in from California and heading for Texas. They’ve left the socialist state for a state that welcomes businesses and doesn’t overburden them with excessive taxation and regulation.
It is evident the mayor doesn’t know that where the minimum wage has been raised — to the lofty heights of $15 an hour in some locations — some have lost their jobs. Many small businesses cannot afford that exorbitant rate, which also means fewer part-time jobs are available.
Stanton also fails to acknowledge that America’s Socialist In Chief, B.H. Obama, has threatened to put out of business those who refuse to provide abortion coverage in their health insurance plans. Through his Obama abortion mandate, the prez would rather harm the business community and the economy, putting families out of work, raising money for Planned Parenthood. He’d rather stand in the way of small businesses, religious colleges and faith-based organizations than allow the economy and the business market to thrive. That’s astounding, mayor.
Progressives have long been strangling businesses in red tape, over-regulation and interference with their ability to survive. This is why we hear about American workers forced to train foreigners to take their jobs and why we lose business to other nations. Think Government Motors moving auto plants to Mexico — where Mexicans gain employment and Americans lose employment.
Progressivism is socialism, which means Big Government, small citizen, small private business.
Obama actually once told businesses, “Now is not the time for profits.” But that’s not surprising for a socialist progressive who prefers that government keep its all-powerful thumb on business.
And that leads us right to unions. Progressives reap huge campaign contributions from unions because they are downright anti-business.
Progressives are also bullish on illegal aliens — future Democratic voters and underminers of the American worker.
Furthermore, progressivism has damaged our public education system for decades, eroding America’s ability to train the workers we need for an efficient business climate and economy. Foreign nationals are getting engineering and doctor’s jobs here because the schools are not preparing enough Americans for those high-paying jobs.
So, bottom line, Mayor Stanton: stop dreaming and stop lying. Clear out your vision and admit the truth. Progressivism is a detriment to business. Conservatism, capitalism create the optimal business climate and represent the best interests of the American worker and the families they feed.
Remember this as election time nears and as you vote. Vote smart. Vote against progressivism, which is the perfect recipe for economic and business failure. Remember also: it was progressive socialists who forced the housing market fiasco that cost many a good American his/her retirement.
Hillary Clinton is the leading member of a generational cohort of elite liberals who brought fascist themes into mainstream liberalism. She and her cohort embody the maternal side of fascism—which is one reason why it is not more clearly recognized as such.
Hillary Clinton is conventionally viewed by her supporters as a liberal—or by conservative opponents as a radical leftist in liberal sheep’s clothing; but it is more accurate to view her as an old-style progressive and a direct descendant of the Social Gospel movement of the 1920s and 1930s.
Hillary increasingly draped herself in the rhetoric of the movement—the youth movement, the women’s movement, the antiwar movement—and gravitated toward others who believed that both her generation and her gender had a rendezvous with destiny.
After graduation from college, Hillary was offered an internship by her hero Saul Alinsky—famed author of Rules for Radicals—about whom she wrote her thesis: “There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” In an unprecedented move, Wellesley College sequestered the thesis in 1992, even refusing to divulge the title until the Clintons left the White House.
Alinsky would invent his famous “method” of community organizing, borrowing tactics from Al Capone’s mobsters, University of Chicago sociologists and John L. Lewis’s union organizers. His violent, confrontational rhetoric often sounded much like that heard from Horst Wessel or his Red Shirt adversaries in the streets of Berlin. Alinsky joined forces with the CIO—then chockablock with Stalinists and other communists—learning how to organize in the streets. In 1940, he founded the Industrial Areas Foundation, which pioneered the community activism movement. He became the mentor to countless communist activists—most famously Cesar Chavez—laying the foundation for both Naderism and the Students for a Democratic Society.
Alinsky believed in exploiting middle-class mores to achieve his agenda, not flouting them as the long-haired hippies did. Alinsky believed that working through friendly or vulnerable institutions in order to smash enemy redoubts was the essence of political organization. He worked closely with reformist and left-leaning clergy, his chief patrons. He mastered the art of unleashing preachers as the frontline activists in his mission of “rubbing raw the sores of discontent.”
Alinsky’s methods inspired the entire 1960s generation of New Left agitators (Barack Obama, for years a Chicago community organizer, was trained by Alinsky’s disciples).
Hillary turned down Alinsky’s job offer in order to attend Yale Law School. He told her it was a huge mistake, but Hillary responded that only by marching through America’s elite institutions could she achieve real power and change the system from within. Hillary helped edit the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, which at the time was a thoroughly radical organ supporting the Black Panthers and publishing articles implicitly endorsing the murder of police. One article, “Jamestown Seventy,” suggested that radicals adopt a program of “political migration to a single state for the purpose of gaining political control and establishing a living laboratory for experiment.” An infamous Review cover depicted police as pigs, one with his head chopped off.
Hillary volunteered to help the Panthers’ legal team, even attending the trial to take notes to help with the defense. She did such a good job of organizing the student volunteers that she was offered a summer internship in the Berkeley, California law offices of Robert Treuhaft, one of Bobby Seale’s lawyers. Treuhaft was a lifetime member of the American Communist Party who had cut his teeth fighting for the Stalinist faction in the California labor movement.
The most revealing aspect of Hillary’s career prior to her arrival in Washington was her advocacy for children. Clinton wrote articles advocating the rights of children to “divorce” their parents. Hillary Clinton’s writings on children show a clear, unapologetic and principled desire to insert the state deep into family life—a goal that is in perfect accord with similar efforts by totalitarians of the past. She condones the state’s assumption of parental responsibilities because she is opposed to the principle of parental authority in any form. Clinton’s writings leave the unmistakable impression that it is the family that holds children back, the state that sets them free.
Selections from “Liberal Fascism,” by Jonah Goldberg (Brave New Village chapter)
Big Government calling again. Now it wants to list sage grouse as an endangered species, restricting access to 167 million acres of land. Arizonans are rightly concerned because it could have a huge, detrimental impact on our state. Some of them visited our congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. Here’s the story in the Mogollon Rim News, by Cindy Sietz-Krug; it’s a worthy read.
A polling firm known as OH Predictive Insights has Mrs. Bill Clinton leading Donald Trump in Arizona, 46.6 percent to 42.2 percent. The poll was taken June 20.
It’s still early, yes, but Democrats usually never lead in Arizona presidential polls.
And if the Republican doesn’t win Arizona, he has absolutely no chance to win the November election.
The poll surveyed 1,060 likely voters based on a projection of the November turnout.
Breaking down this poll, Trump is leading by six points in rural Arizona — which is not a good indicator.
Mrs. Bill Clinton, an ardent socialist advocating for over-control of the American individual, family and private business, has a whopping 17-point lead in Pima County, and that’s no surprise because it’s dominated politically by leftists.
Another bad indicator for Trump is a tie in Maricopa County, the county where Republican candidates can usually count on running up the score and overcoming deficits elsewhere in the state.
Women in Arizona gave Mrs. Bill Clinton a 12-point edge, despite her history of looking the other way while her husband used and abused women and her state department underpaying women.
OH Predictive Insights is a subsidiary of Owens Harkey Advertising. It’s located in Phoenix.