Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, March 25, 2017

This Week In Crazy: Clinton Conspiracies, Coups, And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right

This Week In Crazy: Clinton Conspiracies, Coups, And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right

Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Louie Gohmert

U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX), who infamously once warned Americans of the grave threat posed by foreign “terror babies,” graduated to a new target this week: toddlers.

Speaking on the House floor on Monday, Congressman Gohmert argued that young children shouldn’t get legal status in the United States — because they don’t pay taxes.

After recounting the story of “a three-year-old [who] had someone convince them that they needed to try to get here,” Gohmert explained that this undermines the case for comprehensive immigration reform.

“We have people saying, oh, if we just legalize everybody that is here, all of this new tax money will come flooding in,” Gohmert said. “There can be no debate that young children who are not working, even if they are legalized, for those who make the argument, gee, look at all the tax money that the federal coffers will be getting if we just legalize everybody here, that is a bogus argument. It is a strained argument by people who want more people coming in illegally.”

Indigent toddlers weren’t the only target of Gohmert’s speech; he also accused President Obama of being “complicit” in sex trafficking, by “luring” vulnerable children into the U.S. with promises of amnesty.

His speech can be seen below, in all its illogical glory, via The Raw Story:

In related news, Gohmert and the GOP are still waiting for their poll numbers among Hispanic voters to skyrocket.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo

54 Responses to This Week In Crazy: Clinton Conspiracies, Coups, And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right

  1. What these idiots – although they may not be as dumb and crazy as we think – are talking to a segment of the Republican party that actually believes what they are saying. That’s the part that is troubling…and they vote as often as they can get away with it.

  2. These individuals were on their very own Space Odessey and turned into the main characters of “Killer Klowns from Outer Space”

  3. > Hillary Clinton would usher in the death knell of the United States of America

    I thought that was supposed to happen when Obama was elected. Or re-elected. Or not ousted by 2012. Or 2013. Or 2014.
    Well, I guess it’s Groundhog Day all over again in RWNJland.

    • When JFK was elected, the right wing then (John Birch Society et al, founded by the elder Koch, whose sons founded the Tea Party and AFP) said that John would serve two terms, then Bobby would serve two terms, then Teddy would serve two terms, and then … it would be 1984. At least their math skills, if not their paranoia, were better in those days. And I read “1984” several times, and their slogans (War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength) sound more like right wingers than liberals to me!

  4. Allen West is obviously pi**ed the Democrats didn’t boycott the committee and the GOP can’t just run their little show unopposed.

  5. and these are the types of people that say that they believe in and support the constitution??? the rest of us need to pray however we want that we can save us from them.
    i firmly believe that a person should have to pass an IQ test on common sense before being allowed to breed!

  6. Geez, you’d think Gohmert and his pals would be praising all those kids who don’t pay taxes. After all, the Tea Party and their servants are very much against the federal government. Anything that works against the efficient functioning of the government (like not paying taxes) should be extolled. . . . Oh wait, it’s not paying taxes Gohmert, et al., are against. It’s corporations and the uber-wealthy who shouldn’t pay taxes. If they could get poor kids to pay up, they’d probably be really happy.

  7. So he thinks OBAMA is “luring” children across the border? How about big companies “luring” their PARENTS, who bring them here? And three year old kids don’t pay taxes? Do they come here ALONE or with families? This is just as illogical as the right wingers in the 1980s saying, on the one hand, that “only gay people get AIDS” and yet, on the other hand, we can’t have AIDS patients mix with “decent” people because “they might spread their disease.” You can’t have it both ways at the same time.

    And remember, Superman was an illegal alien.

  8. Ted Yoyo wants to require proof of property ownership to vote? Does paying a mortgage on a home count? Or does it have to be a farm or office building? Does renting your home while owning a billion dollar corporation, or a billion dollars worth of stock, disqualify you from voting? What about the leverage banks would have over candidates for office, disqualifying them for running for office, even from voting, with well timed bogus foreclosure actions (to be reversed with an “apology” AFTER the election)?

    No, removing property requirements was the FIRST IMPROVEMENT in our democracy, paving the way for minorities, women, and 18-20 year olds.

  9. Allen West’s slander of Tammy Duckworth is as cowardly as Saxby Chambliss’ slander of Max Cleland. I will admit that, unlike Chambliss, West is technically a veteran, but he did retire to avoid court martial, and neither of them has, or had, the moral stature to accuse amputees wounded in action of being disloyal to America with no evidence.

    And by the way, as a FORMER (Thank God!) Member of Congress, West is well aware that the oath taken by Representatives and Senators is, like that taken by military recruits, to the CONSTITUTION and not to their PARTY.

  10. These calls for a “second revolution” or “Second Amendment solutions” when the voters vote against them sound like people who read “Seven Days in May” and did NOT like the ending: the survival of Constitutional government when threatened by a military coup.

    Are they planning to do to us what the generals did to Thailand this week?

    • That was what the “Patriots” who were supposed to invade DC by the millions last Friday were planning. Went well, didn’t it?

      • Thankfully, it went well for the rest of us that time. But it only takes an election cycle or two of inattention and apathy by the sane voters to let the wackos take over, either by fooling the people who DO vote into electing directly, or by fooling them into electing people who ALLOW a takeover by the worst. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

  11. Okay, I know this is a stupid, rhetorical question, but I HAVE TO ASK IT ANYWAY: don’t these idiots know how extremely nutty this makes them look? Again, I apologize….

    • Actually it makes US nutty for allowing the extremists to continue to control the voting booths.. The presidential election is NOT the only important vote! We ALL need to vote at every occasion because if we don’t then we allow the extremists to control everything leading up to the president and as we have witnessed, even with the best interests of the nation, a president’ hands are tied if his opponents outnumber his/her intentions.

      • Excellent post. I agree with the poster…that it’s the Dem voters who stay home that elect Republicans… Remember in 2010 President Obama warned the Dems that if we didn’t vote then, there would be a big change in our country. How right he was!

          • Thanks for your post.

            Yes, and to be honest, this really scares me. I fear and grieve not only for our secular nation but for us.

            In my long life, I have never seen or heard so much deliberate lying, corruption, money in politics, religion in government, interference in personal lives by a religious extremist ideologues, hate, racism, disrespect toward our President and total disregard and trashing of our Constitution, especially by the SCOTUS. Did you hear Boehner this week state that there is no difference between the tea and republican?

            This began with Reagan … I could go on and on but it’d only bring up my Blood Pressure.

            But – we cannot and must not give up! If we do, our country dies and so do we!


      • The Republican Pledge of Allegiance (today’s version):

        I pledge allegiance to the cash
        Of Americans for Prosperity,
        And to the republic for which it stands,
        Two nations under Kochs,
        With liberty and justice for sale.

  12. The republicans have one big fault since this president came on the scene and that is not getting people out to vote. They don’t believe in volunteers going door to door for registering voters like the democrats, that is what the dems is doing. That is how the dems was able to defeat them when it was important and the people are listening to what the republicans are saying and doing and they will be standing in long lines again in 2014 and 2016, etc to get their point across. They now are beginning to realize that their votes matter and does count and that the republicans are trying to take away all of their rights from them. The republicans know they are sinking and they are fighting for their lifeline and they are willing to pull every dirty trick they think they can get away with but most of them aren’t work anymore.

    • All we have to remember is there’s more than one major election.. Okay, don’t vote to determine the correct way to suck on a tootsie roll pop but for everything else, show the radicals how much you care for this nation’s future.

  13. “…Speaking on the House floor on Monday, Congressman Gohmert argued that young children shouldn’t get legal status in the United States — because they don’t pay taxes…” Hmm, yet the TGOPs want to give person-hood to a fetus!

    They surely do not know which end is up! Their brains are burning in their own hate.

  14. “Earlier this month, Kentucky senator Rand Paul warned his fellow
    Republicans that they should ease up on their efforts to make it harder
    to vote, saying, “It’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this
    issue because it’s offending people…”

    Actually Rand Paul, voter suppression is unconstitutional!

    • Not to mention insurrection. And these are the people who worry about the constitution not being followed.

      • You are absolutely correct! I would also add treason and sedition. They should all be impeached and blocked from running for any public office. They don’t have a clue of how, why the Constitution was written…nor do they care.

        They are not only sick, but sickening and an embarrassment to this country. And, our Founding Fathers and Mothers must be turning over in their graves. I think they should start haunting the halls of Congress. Maybe the TGOPs would be scared of of their wits — the little that they have left.

        Have you heard of Check it out. It’s Ben Cohen’s web site about how we the people can affect overturning Citizens United and McCutcheon. Ben is a co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.

        Blessings…Have a great evening and thanks.

  15. Allen West is absolutely right: “this [the Benghazi circus] is not the right thing,” and I have to say I believe the Dems should have refused to grant it legitimacy by attending. Perhaps – as one Dem suggested, they could have sent one person to keep it from getting too far out of hand.

  16. In his Jan. 28 State of the Union Address, President Obama pledged to “make this a year of action,” if necessary by himself if Congress didn’t cooperate. “I’ve got a pen,” he’d said earlier in the month, “and I’ve got a phone.”

    Earlier this month, the White House issued an update on its “Year of Action” theme, featuring the headline “See what President Obama has done this year to help ensure opportunity for all Americans” on the report’s cover.

    Here’s the kind of thing I found in the White House list of 24 actions: “Executive Order directing the timely completion of the International Trade Data System” and “permanently protected the first shoreline addition to the California Coastal Marine National Monument.” This stuff will not ignite economic growth, expand opportunity, create jobs or reduce deficits.

    Mr. Obama’s “Year of Action” has produced very few results, making his sixth year in office singularly ineffective so far. Of course he blames Republicans, who oppose some of his proposals such as raising the minimum wage. However, the Congressional Budget Office’s conclusion that this action would cost 500,000 jobs has even unsettled some House and Senate Democrats.

    The president’s difficulties can be explained by several factors. For starters, the administration often doesn’t follow through. Consider the president’s State of the Union pledge “to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects” in “transportation and waterways.” This seems to have gone nowhere. The Keystone XL pipeline is apparently not a key project.

    Or take his call for reforming a tax code “riddled with wasteful, complicated loopholes.” The status of the administration’s draft legislation? Nonexistent. Has anyone met with Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, since the bill must originate in the House? No.

    Some of Mr. Obama’s agenda is opposed by his own party. He called for Trade Promotion Authority to strengthen his hand in negotiating trade deals in his State of the Union address. The next day Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid killed it, warning, “Everyone would be well-advised to not push this right now.”

    Then there’s White House bungling. An increasing number of Republicans want to reform immigration. So the White House makes it known Mr. Obama is considering unilaterally changing deportation policies, diminishing the interest of congressional Republicans in acting now. They (reasonably) fear he will simply apply the law as he wants, not enforce it as written. The ferociously partisan Mr. Obama has little credibility with his loyal opposition.

    It also hurts that the administration isn’t focused on the issues that concern Americans. In Gallup’s April 30 survey, the top three issues people picked as “very important” to their vote for Congress in November were the economy (43%), the federal budget deficit (37%) and taxes (36%). Foreign policy tied with taxes for third.

    The president has not offered a sustained focus on the economy, and voters can tell he doesn’t have a serious governing agenda on the issue. What they hear are banal talking points and focus-group-tested phrases. The result is mush.

    Or, in some cases, worse than mush. Delaying the Keystone XL pipeline and making it harder to build or operate coal-fired power plants actually undermines growth, job creation and America’s competitiveness.

    He rarely talks about the national debt. Taxes only come up as a topic when he wants to raise them. He understandably doesn’t highlight foreign policy because his is such a mess.

    Much of what Team Obama says seems unconnected to reality. In a conference call earlier this month, National Economic Council Director Jeffrey Zeints claimed that the administration’s “concrete actions” are “working like a jolt of caffeine” on the economy. That doesn’t square with the experience of ordinary Americans, who do not see the first quarter’s GDP growth of 0.1% as a double espresso.

    Finally, Mr. Obama seems unable to get ahead of many new challenges, whether it is Russia’s efforts to subsume Ukraine or the scandal over secret Veterans Administration waiting lists. This makes him look weak and disengaged.

    Congressional Democrats are increasingly disappointed and fearful. They thought Mr. Obama had a trick up his sleeve for the midterms, not just a pen and a phone. They know if voters disapprove of Mr. Obama, they’ll take it out on them this fall.

  17. After joining a controversial lobby group critical of climate change, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims he was shunned by colleagues, leading him to quit. Some scientists complain pressure to conform to consensus opinion has become a serious hindrance in the field.

    News that Lennart Bengtsson, the respected former director of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, had joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), sent shockwaves through the climate research community. GWPF is most notable for its skepticism about climate change and its efforts to undermine the position of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The tremors his decision sent through the scientific community shocked Bengtsson.

    The scientist said colleagues placed so much pressure on him after joining GWPF that he withdrew from the group out of fear for his own health. Bengtsson added that his treatment had been reminiscent of the persecution of suspected Communists in the United States during the era of McCarthyism in the 1950s.

    Not all of his fellow climatologists agree. Gavin Schmidt a climatologist and climate modeler at NASA described the “alleged connection to McCarthy” as “ridiculous.” “As someone who has actually been threatened with criminal sanctions by a United States Senator only because of published science, I don’t quite see why Bengtsson’s total freedom to associate with anyone he wants — and let me be clear, he has this freedom — has in any way been compromised,” he said.

    But Bengtsson insists that even close colleagues shunned him. He says that one research partner, apparently fearing damage to his reputation, withdrew from a study they had been conducting together. Bengtsson added no further details other than to state that the incident had been hurtful.

    NASA’s Schmidt also expressed criticism of that claim. “This is so vague as to mean anything, and without an actual example, it is impossible to know what is being alleged.”

    Clouds Gathered Ahead of Storm

    It is now emerging that the clouds of controversy gathered ahead of the current storm. In February, Bengtsson weathered a significant setback. The scientific journal Environmental Research Letters declined to publish a study he had authored predicting a milder greenhouse effect. Peer reviewers described the report’s findings as “less than helpful” and added, “actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate-skeptic media side.”

    Respected German meteorologist Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center, described the justification as “scandalous” and accused the journal of politically motivated decision-making not based on scientific standards. In a statement on the IOP Science website, Publisher Nicola Gulley emphasizes that the study was declined on scientific grounds. She argues that Bengtsson’s work failed to meet the journal’s high standards.

    Climate researchers are now engaged in a debate about whether their science is being crippled by a compulsion to conform. They wonder if pressure to reach a consensus is too great. They ask if criticism is being suppressed. No less is at stake than the credibility of research evidence for climate change and the very question of whether climate research is still reliable.

    Bengtsson said in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE that he wanted to open up the climate change debate by joining GWPF. He said that in view of large gaps in knowledge, the pressure to reach a consensus in climate research “does not make sense”.

    Nevertheless, by joining the political lobby group, Bengtsson opened himself up to criticism that he had taken a position inappropriate for a scientist of his stature.

    ‘We Are not an Interest Group’

    University of Washington climatologist Eric Steig says the activities of the GWPF are more reminiscent of McCarthyism than Bengtsson’s case. Steig says the GWPF boasts about investigating climate researchers. “They also have published opinion articles on their web site accusing mainstream climate scientists of having ‘secret societies’ and having political agendas designed with specific left-wing policy aims in mind,” he adds. “They have accused British schools of ‘brainwashing’ students by teaching them about climate change.” GWPF, for its part, calls itself a think tank that documents arguments stating why climate change as a problem is being overestimated.

    Reto Knutti of the ETH Zürich technical university is also critical. “Organizations like the GWPF contribute to whipping scientific debate into a religious war,” he argues. “They distribute pseudo-scientific reports, even though they are actually pursuing a political aim,” says Knutti. Jochem Marotzke, who is Bengtsson’s successor at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, says, “GWPF works deliberately in a selective way. They mention only arguments that suit their purposes. Counterarguments are kept under wraps.”

    Professor Myles Allen, a climate researcher at Oxford, says, “The problem is their anti-science agenda, clearly illustrated by the fact that they refused point blank to submit their recent report criticizing the IPCC 5th Assessment Report to the same kind of open peer review that the IPCC report was itself subjected to.”

    GWPF Director Benny Peiser challenges assertions like that. “We are not an interest group; our scientists have no official or collective opinion — to any topics. If there were no taboos in climate science or climate policy, the GWPF would probably not exist.”

    ‘Stealth Advocates’

    But even a recognized skeptical climate researcher Roger Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist at the University of Colorado, says the group uses science to cloak its political agenda. Pielke emphasizes, however, that as a lobbying group GWPF “has every right to advance whatever arguments it wants. It often focuses on stealth advocacy — hiding its politics in science — a strategy common across the climate issue, found on all ‘sides,’ and is pretty common across many issues.”

    Von Storch agrees that other political camps, such as environmental groups, also use “stealth advocates” to influence scientific debate. Pielke elaborates, “In a democracy people will organize around all sorts of shared interests, as they should, and many will share values that I don’t. So what? Bengtsson’s justifications for associating with GWPF are perfectly legitimate. That he was pressured by his peers with social and other sanctions reflects the deeply politicized nature of this issue.”

    He argues that scientific research must be held to higher standards than lobby groups, but even those standards now the subject of greater scrutiny.

    Many climatologists have been tacitly complaining about harassment and exclusion for years. But is the situation any worse in this scientific discipline than it is in others? Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado says, “Unfortunately, climate science has become very politicized and views that differ at all from those in control of the climate assessment process are either ignored or ridiculed. From my experience, I agree 100 percent with the allegations made by the very distinguished Lennart Bengtsson.”

    But who is doing the politicizing? Knutti says that it is pretty easy to tell. “If you are on the left politically, you believe in global warming,” he says. “If you are on the right, that is much less likely.” He adds that the line between opinion and fact is often blurred, even among scientists.

    ‘Dirty, Nasty, Destructive’

    “Each side maintains the other is politicizing the debate,” explains Werner Krauss, an environmental ethnologist at the Helmholtz Center for Materials and Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany. He says climate research is dominated by “strongmen” who know how to exploit the media whenever they like. Krauss claims Bengtsson stage managed his move to GWPF in the media and alleges that climate research has fallen into the throes of the scientific equivalent of religious fervor. He says it is no wonder Bengtsson came under heavy fire for his decision.

    At the same time, Heinrich Miller of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research says, “I find the way his colleagues reacted shocking. Apparently there is now pervasive disappointment because a shining scientific example is making his scientific doubts public,” he says. Miller adds that the Bengtsson case reminds him when politicians use “dirty tricks” to muzzle opponents.

    Pielke Jr. confirms that climate research is a tough business. “We see hardball politics,” he says. “I have personally seen very strong social and professional pressures over the years. These include threats to my job, professional ostracism, public misrepresentations of my research and views, efforts to prevent me from speaking publicly and personal threats, many of which have been publicly documented.” He advises that “anyone who wishes to participate in the public debate on climate change should do so knowing how the politics are played today — dirty, nasty, destructive.”

    ‘Global Warming Is Taken as Dogma’

    Climatologist Michael Mann even speaks of “climate wars.” For years, he says he was the subject of attacks by conservative groups skeptical of climate change, especially after the “Climategate” scandal, when his e-mail correspondence was published illegally. The other side is not pulling any punches either — at least when it comes to vitriol. One Austrian professor has gone so far as calling for the death penalty for climate skeptics.

    Miller says that scientists were politicized more than anything else by having to seek a consensus on results for the 5th IPCC report. “Global warming is taken as dogma. Anyone who doubts it is bad,” says the renowned researcher, who was branded a “climate skeptic” after questioning the scientific validity of computer simulations.

    Knutti, by contrast, warns about overemphasizing the lack of certainty about the evidence. He says Bengtsson’s stringent criticism of climate change forecasts is misleading, explaining that the models provided useable results that were tested on historical climate change. The 5th IPCC Report that took hundreds of scientists years to produce, says Knutti, comprehensively documents the range of results. He says that sitting back and waiting until all the questions are answered is not an alternative, and describes a large portion of what has come to be called skepticism as deliberate deception.

    • If a scientist came out denying the existence of gravity, or claiming that fires are not fueled by oxidation but by releasing phlogiston, or that the Earth is hollow and the sky is what the center of that hollow sphere looks like, or anything that crazy, they would be shunned also, unless they could show OVERWHELMING evidence that all the other scientists are wrong. Not because of “political correctness” but because of IRRATIONAL thinking.

      There have been times when scientists were all wrong about a MODEL of the universe, or of some phenomenon, but when the EVIDENCE goes the wrong way (as when the Michelson-Morley experiment ruled out the existence of “ether” as an absolute frame of reference for motion; look it up, it’s a fascinating story), the scientific community DID, eventually, change its story.

      There is still much we do not know about the DETAILS of climate change, but we know it IS HAPPENING. It’s like standing on the track and seeing a train approaching. Rather than waiting until you can count the cars and measure its speed, the rational thing to do is JUMP OFF THE TRACK. Then you can LIVE to get the data about cars and speed.

      • “It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.

        Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988.

        Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions. Manmade climate change—called anthropogenic global warming—continues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.

        There is no scientific support for the UN theory.

        CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.

        “Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes, “then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”

        “The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes, “is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be.

        Most of the reports were created by a small group of men working within the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and all were members of the IPCC. The result was “a totally false picture supposedly based on science.”

        The revelations of emails between the members of the CRU were made available in 2009 by an unknown source. Dr. Ball quotes Phil Jones, the Director of the CRU at the time of the leaks, and Tom Wigley, a former director addressing other CRU members admitting that “Many of the uncertainties surrounding the cause of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.”

        The IPCC depended upon the public’s lack of knowledge regarding the science involved and the global warming hoax was greatly aided because the “mainstream media bought into and promoted the unproven theory. Scientists who challenged were denied funding and marginalized. National environmental policies were introduced based on the misleading information” of the IPCC summaries of their reports.

        “By the time of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the politics and hysteria about climate change had risen to a level that demanded clear evidence of a human signal,” notes Dr. Ball. “An entire industry had developed around massive funding from government. A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence. Environmentalists were increasing pressure on the public and thereby politicians.”

        The growing problem for the CRU and the entire global warming hoax was that no clear evidence existed to blame mankind for changes in the climate and still largely unknown to the public was the fact that the Earth has passed through many natural cycles of warmth and cooling. If humans were responsible, how could the CRU explain a succession of ice ages over millions of years?

        The CRU emails revealed their growing concerns regarding a cooling cycle that had begun in the late 1990s and now, some seventeen years later, the Earth is in a widely recognized cooling cycle.

        Moreover, the hoax was aimed at vast reductions in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power to produce the electricity on which all modern life depends. There was advocacy of solar and wind power to replace them and nations undertook costly programs to bring about the reduction of the CO2 “fossil fuels” produced and spent billions on the “green” energy. That program is being abandoned.

        At the heart of the hoax is a contempt for mankind and a belief that population worldwide should be reduced. The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures. “Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle,” warns Dr. Ball.

        Given that the environmental movement has been around since the 1960s, it has taken decades for the public to grasp its intent and the torrents of lies that have been used to advance it. “More people,” notes Dr. Ball, “are starting to understand that what they’re told about climate change by academia, the mass media, and the government is wrong, especially the propaganda coming from the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

        “Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.

        Worse, however, has been “the deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying scientific method and research” to pursue a political objective. Much of this is clearly unlawful, but it is unlikely that any of those who perpetrated the hoax will ever be punished and, in the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, they shared a Nobel Peace Prize!

        We are all in debt to Dr. Ball and a score of his fellow scientists who exposed the lies and debunked the hoax; their numbers are growing with thousands of scientists signing petitions and participating in international conferences to expose this massive global decepti

        • Where do you dig up all these guys? Dr Ball Never was a climatologist, though he claimed to be one. He claimed to have a PhD in climatology, but it was in Historical Geography. Like your other Climate Change denial hero, J Fred Singer, he also denies accepted sizable sums from fossil fuel and other GW/CC denial groups.

          • Even though i criticized Dr Ball for fudging on his credentials, it is a related field and he could still be very knowledgeable in the field of climatology. Spinning one’s qualifications, however, sends up a danger signal to me.

    • Bengsston has a right to his opinion, and he is right – as are many other GW/CC deniers – that many of the predicted climatic disasters have not (yet) occurred, but many (like glacial melting,sea level rise and ambient temperature increase near the poles, desertification) are in the process of occurring even more rapidly than predicted.

      Humanity would be better off to get out of the way of a possible (according to the vast majority of climatic scientists – even if they are not 100 percent correct) climatic, environmental and economic juggernaut, rather than to wait, as deniers would have us do, until we are in the midst of its full fury – and it’s too late to do anything about it – if it’s not already.

      • S. Fred Singer is a distinguished astrophysicist who has taken a hard, scientific look at the evidence. In this book, Dr. Singer explores the inaccuracies in historical climate data, the limitations of attempting to model climate on computers, solar variability and its impact on climate, the effects of clouds, ocean currents, and sea levels on global climate, and factors that could mitigate any human impacts on world climate.

        Singer’s masterful analysis decisively shows that the pessimistic, and often alarming, global warming scenarios depicted in the media have no scientific basis. In fact, he finds that many aspects of any global warming, such as a longer growing season for food and a reduced need to use fossil fuels for heating, would actually have a positive impact on the human race. Further, Singer notes how many proposed “solutions” to the global warming “crisis” (like “carbon” taxes) would have severe consequences for economically disadvantaged groups and nations.

        • Is this the same S Fred Singer who pitched for the Tobacco Industry back in ’93, claiming exoneration of smoking cigarettes from any deleterious effects on the human body, and who worked with four supposedly scientific organizations who took almost a half million dollars in “unsolicited” funds from Exxon during 2002-3?

          Many writers and scientists consider Singer – who certainly has an impressive scientific dossier – as a big time scientist who has turned his expertise (with which most climatologists disagree) into corporate shillery. Some of his theories are accepted, but many have been knocked into a cocked hat. He’s correct about one thing, and may have put into practice, however – that working for mega-corporations is much more remunerative than working for the people.

  18. WASHINGTON — It’s one of those promises the president would probably like to forget.

    In vowing to make the Veterans Administration the model of national health-care reform back in 2008, the outlook for scandal-plagued Obamacare suddenly seems even worse.

    WND has discovered that during his transition into the White House in 2008-09, President Obama proposed in his “Obama-Biden” plan to “make the VA a leader of national health care reform so that veterans get the best care possible.”

    However, instead of fixing the VA, the administration has had to defend its role in the death of veterans by neglect.

    Meanwhile, WND is reporting that eight years earlier, in a failed run for Congress, Obama unveiled a sweeping health-care plan that modeled aspects of the Veterans Administration’s medical system.

    The VA problems became a national sensation April 14 when CNN reported that at least 40 U.S. veterans died waiting for appointments at the Phoenix VA, many of whom were placed on a secret waiting list.

    The discovery of the Obama-Biden VA plan fits a pattern that has come to light this week in which Obama repeatedly warned, or was warned, of serious problems at the VA but apparently did little in response.

    In the document labeled the Obama-Biden Plan from the Office of the President Elect, Obama makes a series of promises to veterans, including:

    Fix the Benefits Bureaucracy: Hire additional claims workers, and improve training and accountability so that VA benefit decisions are rated fairly and consistently. Transform the paper benefit claims process to an electronic one to reduce errors and improve timeliness.

    Strengthen VA Care: Make the VA a leader of national health care reform so that veterans get the best care possible. Improve care for polytrauma vision impairment, prosthetics, spinal cord injury, aging, and women’s health.

    Fully Fund VA Medical Care: Fully fund the VA so it has all the resources it needs to serve the veterans who need it, when they need it. Establish a world-class VA Planning Division to avoid future budget shortfalls.

    The Obama-Biden plan seems to have fallen so far short of its promise to “Fix the Benefits Bureaucracy” that the VA itself has admitted 23 vets have died waiting for care, and investigations of possible death-by-neglect have spread to 26 VA facilities around the country.

    As WND has reported, Obama was warned about severe problems at the VA repeatedly over the years, even before he became president.

    WND discovered that Obama was briefed on problems at the VA as far back as 2005, when he was a senator and a member of the Veterans Affairs committee.

    In a 2007 speech, Sen. Obama said, “Keeping faith with those who serve must always be a core American value and a cornerstone of American patriotism. Because America’s commitment to its servicemen and women begins at enlistment, and it must never end.”

    The Washington Times reported Monday that the Obama administration received notice more than five years ago that VA medical facilities were reporting inaccurate waiting times and experiencing scheduling failures that threatened to deny veterans timely health care.

    VA officials reportedly warned the Obama-Biden transition team in the weeks after the 2008 presidential election that the wait times the facilities were reporting were not trustworthy.

    More recently, House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller, R-Fla., wrote a letter to Obama on May 21, 2013, that warned: “an alarming pattern of serious and significant patient care issues at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) across the country … (including) failures, deceptions, and lack of accountability permeating VA’s healthcare system … I believe your direct involvement and leadership is required.”

    And, WND reported last week that Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., reminded VA Secretary Eric Shinseki that Congress had been informed two years ago that gaming the system at the VA was so widespread, employees would look to get around regulations as soon as the rules were implemented.

    Democrats have been quick to say the problems were caused by an increase in veterans in the system due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the solution is to increase spending on the VA.

    Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said, “If the VA does not have enough doctors to see these patients, then these problems are a result of a lack of funding.”

    On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” NBC News chief Pentagon reporter Jim Miklaszewski claimed, “You have a VA that is overwhelmed and under-resourced,” adding, “There’s just not enough money right now in the federal government to fix it.”

    However, John Merline at Investor’s Business Daily crunched the numbers and found that just wasn’t true.

    On the contrary, he found the VA’s budget has been exploding, even as the number of veterans steadily declines.

    VA spending nearly tripled from 2000 to 2013, while the population of veterans declined by 4.3 million.

    Even more telling, wounded warriors coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are not increasing treatment costs.

    Those vets are actually far cheaper to treat than aging vets.

    A Congressional Budget Office report found that they cost $4,800, on average, in 2010 compared with $8,800 for other veterans who used the system.

    It also found, while these Iraq and Afghan vets account for 7 percent of those treated, they were responsible for only 4 percent of its health costs.

    Iraq and Afghan vets, the report found, “are typically younger and healthier than the average VHA patient and as a result are less expensive to treat.”

    Still, the VA scandal keeps exploding, with no signs of slowing down. VA Secretary Shinseki had testified before the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee last week that he was not aware of problems similar to those in Phoenix at other VA facilities, except in isolated cases. But emboldened whistleblowers have now identified 26 VA facilities around the country experiencing similar problems.

    Just Thursday, an attorney claimed her client died of neglect by the Seattle Veterans Affairs hospital.

    The attorney said Donald Douglass had a small spot on his forehead confirmed as cancerous when he went to the Seattle VA hospital in 2011, but it was four months before the hospital scheduled an appointment for him to have it removed — and by then, it had spread, wrapping around a facial nerve and eventually getting into his blood.

    According to attorney Jessica Holman, “Had he had his surgery timely, he’d be alive today.”

    In Miami, a criminal investigator for the VA police department in South Florida went to a local television station because, he said, the VA told him to stop investigating drug deals on hospital grounds.

    “People are dying,” Detective Thomas Fiore said, “and there are so many things that are going on there that people need to know about.”

    Fiore claimed illegal drug deals area occur daily at the hospital, involving, “Anything from your standard prescription drugs like OxyContin, Vicodin, Percocet, and of course marijuana, cocaine, heroin, I’ve come across them all.”

    He says he was even stopped from investigating reports of missing drugs from the VA pharmacy by the official in charge.

    “I was instructed that I was to stop conducting investigations pertaining to controlled substance discrepancies,” by the hospital’s chief of staff, Dr. Vincent DeGennaro, said Fiore.

    The growing scandal could affect upcoming elections, because if the VA problems offer a preview of government-run health insurance, then Republicans may be rapidly acquiring explosive new ammunition in their efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare.

    Former AP Washington Bureau Chief Ron Fournier, now with National Journal, said Obama’s poor handling of the mismanagement at the Department of Veterans Affairs could plague his presidency as an all-time low point.

    “The president has known the VA has been a mess for a long time, and hasn’t done anything to get it fixed,” he said. “It’s gotten worse recently — at least for the last two years, we’ve known we’ve had these problems and nothing’s been done,” said Fournier.

    However, leading liberals have long touted the VA as an efficient model of government-run health care.

    New York times columnist Paul Krugman called the VA a “huge success story” in 2011, saying “[I]t’s free from the perverse incentives created when doctors and hospitals profit from expensive tests and procedures, whether or not those procedures actually make medical sense.”

    Krugman added, “Yes, this is ‘socialized medicine’ … But it works, and suggests what it will take to solve the troubles of US health care more broadly.”

    In 2009, his fellow New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, wrote, “Take the hospital system run by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest integrated health system in the United States. It is fully government run, much more ‘socialized medicine’ than is Canadian health care with its private doctors and hospitals. And the system for veterans is by all accounts one of the best-performing and most-cost-effective elements in the American medical establishment.”

  19. A few years ago while in Congress, West slandered Debbie Wasserman Schultz calling her all sorts of obnoxious and insulting things. Mrs. Wasserman Schultz made a mistake–she should have walked up to West and given him a slap in the face that would have sent him reeling. And so should Tammy Duckworth now.

  20. Well gee, Mr. Gohmert, why don’t we tax non-alien toddlers. Make it a subsidiary proposal to Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”.

  21. Oh yeah, and Allen West’s experience in the military? being brought before a military court and made to retire or face up to 12 years in prison.

  22. You say you want a Revolution? … But if you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell you is brother, you’ll have to wait.

  23. Applying calm, adult, rational analysis to these people has now become almost embarrassing. My parents raised me to never criticize nor ridicule the mentally deficient, and now they are giving me moral cramps.

    First, to what appears to be a growing movement over there in their camp is a fascination with restricting voter registration from those who do not own land. All the most dynamic cities in our world and most dense industrial and transformational locations are based upon rental tenancy. The tenant pays the real estate taxes through and by way of the rent. I don’t care if you are renting a Manhattan penthouse 1969 trailer in Scrapgrabble Arkansas, you are paying those real estate taxes, you are simply doing so through and by way of the investor-owner.

    Second, everybody who puts a coin into a vending machine is a tax payer. The real truth is those at the bottom of our economy pay far more taxes proportionally than those at the top.

    Third, anytime any of us here anyone, and i mean anyone, suggest an economics means test to voting in this country we should break out the tar and feathers.

    I would even go so far as to suggest that we no longer call this Friday special “This Week in Crazy”. I believe it should be entitled “This Week in Dangerously Deranged.”

  24. Does ANYONE in the GOP ever read the Constitution, especially when it comes to voting rights? For crying out loud…..they are getting so ridiculous. They all should be impeached and committed for being batshit crazy!!!

Leave a reply