Skip to content

Thank You America, You Were the Beacon of Freedom for the World

October 20, 2009
  1. carterthewriter permalink
    October 20, 2009 4:23 pm


    • Swemson permalink
      October 28, 2009 8:00 pm

      Lord Monckton just eviscerated the latest Senate testimony of Secretary Chu, on the Global Warming Hoax


      Senate Testimony of Sec. Chu Refuted
      Washington, DC 10/28/2009 03:40 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)

      The Senate testimony of Sec. Chu is predicated upon false assumptions, points out Christopher Monckton in a succinct letter to Senators posted by the Science and Public Policy Institute [SPPI], a Washington DC –based NGO.

      The letter points out that Chu’s testimony cites the now-outdated 2007 Climate Assessment Report of the IPCC and a subsequent but also now-outdated MIT study, saying global warming by 2100 would be 7-11 Fº. “These excessive estimates are founded solely on computerized guesswork,” says Christopher Monckton, former adviser to UK Prime Minister Thatcher and current SPPI policy adviser.

      Monckton reviews a number of recent papers having appeared in the peer-reviewed literature that put the man-made warming scare to rest, and render regulation of CO2 emissions needless and blindingly fatuous.

      Particular attention is given to the recent paper of Lindzen and Choi (2009). Using direct measurements of outgoing radiation, the two researchers found that the IPCC models get both the science and their “predictions” wrong. Monckton resents a series of IPPC model graphs and compares them to the one produced from real measurements. “The IPPC model predictions,” reports Monckton, “actually trend in a direction opposite to that of the graph from observed reality.”

      Concludes Monckton, “By patient, painstaking measurement, the two researchers have trumped the computer models’ unanimously erroneous guesswork, and have definitively ended the debate over the question how much warming CO2 causes. Therefore, Secretary Chu’s declaration that the ‘threat’ from ‘climate change’ is ‘grave’ and that current levels of CO2 emission are ‘unsustainable’ has no scientific justification.”

      The letter further informs Senators that “Even if, per impossibile, the UN’s exaggerated estimate of the warming effect of CO2 were right, it is trivial to demonstrate that reducing carbon emissions would be the least cost-effective use of taxpayers’ money ever devised.” This is so because to forestall just 1 Fº of warming would require the entire world to forego all carbon emissions for more than 200 years. Thus, “Sec. Chu’s implication that reducing CO2 emissions via the Copenhagen Treaty or via the 900-page Climate Bill now before the Senate would make a significant difference to the climate is accordingly wrong. The Bill, even if fully implemented, would make no measurable difference.”

      The letter concludes by informing the Senators of Sec. Chu’s “regrettably one-sided view of the current market for so-called “renewable” technologies,” his withholding information of China’s true energy investments and the failure of CO2 trading schemes in every instance tried. Says Monckton, “The Energy Secretary has not yet mastered his portfolio. It is high time he did, or the consequences for taxpayers will be as costly as they are pointless.”

  2. Jack Samwell permalink
    October 20, 2009 5:30 pm

    I caught this same video on the John Birch site yesterday along with some insightful commentary here:

    Unless we surrender our military to the United Nations or some other transnational body, i don’t think the United States could be forced to honor any sorverignty violating treaty President Obama may sign. Nonetheless, it is something to become alarmed about.

  3. swemson permalink
    October 20, 2009 6:59 pm


    This video is the last 4 minutes of Lord Monckton’s presentation in Minnesota which was over an hour and a half long. While many on the right are beginning to smell something fishing in the entire global warming movement, few have any idea how monstrous the lie is.. This is one of the main cornerstones of Obama’s plan to take control of this country so that he can remake it according to his twisted and evil ideology, and help move towards the one world government that he envisions.

    Both Newsreel and FrontPage should seriously consider laying out the full story for all of your members and fans to see for themselves.

    This is without question, the single biggest scientific fraud ever to be perpetrated on mankind… And if we don’t do everything we can to stop this while we still can, then we’re truly in far more trouble than most people realize.

    While there’s ideology involved in the enemy’s motives, the issue itself is one based on allegedly valid scientific facts… and the REAL facts are VERY clear as to how big of a scam AGW truly is.

    As long as there are provable facts, we can stop this thing,

    IF we can get the message heard…

    It’s respected thinkers like you who we must turn to, in order to spread the world… Anything you can think of to accomplish that, will truly enhance your legacy !

  4. Stephen Brady permalink
    October 20, 2009 8:58 pm

    I’ve spent years trying to get someone on the right side of this issue to listen to me, concerning amending Article Six of the Constitution. No temporary occupant of the White House should have the power to sign away America’s national sovereignty with the stroke of a pen.

    As of this moment, no one has listened. The Second Paragraph of Article Six reads:
    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    I honestly and sadly believe that the signing and ratification of this treaty will end the sovereignty of the United States of America. After that, the time for talk will have ended …

    • VNVet permalink
      October 20, 2009 9:18 pm

      “After that, the time for talk will have ended …”

      Indeed, it will plunge us into a civil war.

      • Stephen Brady permalink
        October 20, 2009 9:34 pm

        My friend, that’s exactly why I used that phraseology.

    • swemson permalink
      October 20, 2009 10:22 pm


      You seem to know the Constitution pretty well, so please answer this if you can..

      Considering the existing language, how can the Supreme Court NOT declare Obama’s signing of this treaty unconstitutional and therefore null and void ?

      Wouldn’t the dems then be forced to pass a constitutional amendment in order to overcome the court’s ruling ?

      Considering that people are starting to catch on, that might not be so easy to do.. correct ?

      • Stephen Brady permalink
        October 21, 2009 8:16 am

        They would have to move fast. At the moment that the Senate ratified the treaty, it would become … as it were … part of the US Constitution, and they would be duty-bound to uphold it.

        I would hope, in this case, that starting with Texas, certain states would secede from the union. The “global community” will not tolerate this act of secession, to say nothing of the Obama Administration. Civil War would ensue …

        • swemson permalink
          October 21, 2009 7:00 pm

          I don’t understand this:

          They would have to move fast. At the moment that the Senate ratified the treaty, it would become … as it were … part of the US Constitution, and they would be duty-bound to uphold it.

          If the govt signed a treaty that violated basic constitutional principles, how could it over-ride our constitution ?

          As soon as the govt took action on the treaty that violated anyone’s basic rights, why couldn’t that individual sue and get the court to declare it unconstitutional… ?

          • Stephen Brady permalink
            October 21, 2009 9:37 pm

            Because it would become the “Supreme Law of the land”.

            The Court decides which cases it will hear. The best defense that the United States has, at the present time, is Chief Justice Roberts, who is the primary mover in deciding which cases would be heard. However, if the 89-year old Justice Kennedy suddenly dies … and remember that he is the “swing vote” on the Court … Obama will replace him with a clone of Justice Sotamayor. Hence, the vote will be 5-4 in favor of Obama and his agenda, for the foreseeable future.

            Theoretically, the new Court would be able to abrogate or substantially change every right possessed by the people granted by the Bill of Rights.

            • swemson permalink
              October 21, 2009 10:42 pm

              Maybe I’m being terribly naive, but I was under the impression that while the court can “interpret” the constitution where the language could have more than one potential meaning, that it couldn’t simply REVERSE the constitution on basic issues….

              Don’t supreme court justices have some kind of ethical obligation to uphold the constitution, when it’s meaning is crystal clear on a specific issue, even if they personally wish it were worded differently ?

              Why for example can’t the current court strike down some of the unconstitutional things that have already happened… ?

              Does the fact that the country hasn’t objected to minor transgressions of certain constitutional rules, mean that it’s forever precluded from objecting to far more serious such transgressions ?

              Ex: If Obama issued an executive order to confiscate all privately owned firearms, how could the court possibly allow that… ?

              To be honest, I think it would become a moot issue, because IMHO the citizenry would probably pack their guns in their pickups and head for DC.. and at SOME point in this absurd tragic-comedy, I doubt that the nation’s police & national guard would stand in their way…

              • Stephen Brady permalink
                October 22, 2009 9:14 am

                But the Leftist mindset regarding the Constitution is that it is a “living document”. In other words, if a law is passed confiscating guns … which would immediately trigger another US civil war, by the way … the Supreme Court could confirm that law. Rather than interpreting the Constitution, they can change it, if they so wish.

                Make no mistake, the Left wants to change the Constitution.

                • swemson permalink
                  October 22, 2009 9:55 am

                  I know that they do…

                  I just thought that our system of checks & balances offered us a bit more protection then it apparently does.

                  But there’s still something in what you say than bugs me…

                  You say that “the Supreme Court could confirm that law.”

                  If so, by what standard ? I thought that they were obligated to “confirm” if the law was in keeping with the clear meaning of the constitution, and “overturn” the law if it clearly violates the meaning of the constitution.

                  I thought that the only legal way to “change” the constitution was by passing amendments, which require a 2/3rds vote for ratification.

                  Was I taught wrong ?

  5. ALouis permalink
    October 20, 2009 11:26 pm

    Let me start by saying this is my first post here. Anyway, I hope the content on here is accessible if they pass net neutrality. But, that is another something topic and I apologize for going off it. I saw this video a few nights ago and it sent shivers up my spine. I pulled up a draft of the treaty and there were provisions for transfering technology and wealth to underdeveloped countries. This looks like redistribution of wealth to me. Seeing that was enough and I closed it down. I really didn’t want to look any further. The UN Millennium Development Goals are going to be next. While their intentions look somewhat good on the surface, it looks like more of the same as look deeper. Bono mentioned them in his NYT opinion column after calling us the not so United States and saying we need a reboot. He also said that Obama was commited to signing them. It was probably in the UN Speech. Anyway, we can only hope of happier days ahead, sometime.

    • VNVet permalink
      October 21, 2009 12:06 pm

      World Government (World Socialism) IS redistribution of wealth on the world scale.

  6. Rafe permalink
    October 21, 2009 1:01 am

    Now, anyone with a working brain, and some common sense, can see why that fake Lord is just full of crap. But in case anyone needs to have it explained veeeeeeeeeeery slowly:

    • oldwolves permalink
      October 21, 2009 4:28 am

      I agree with you Rafe,
      I think that it is in our best interest to ignore this fellow so that we will have peace in our time.(Chamberlain) It’s obvious that the UN only has our best interest at hand. (And our principle)Now anyone with a working brain,(Liberals exempt of course) Can see that by letting facts get in the way,(Global warming scam) We are only prolonging the inevitable collapse of freedom in the world.(We are the world…) That man obviously has no clue to what can be achieved if we simply ignore history!
      It’s not like Obama will sell out the country.(World apology tour) He’s only trying to be the president of the world! And if the UN uses his ego to achieve their desire, so be it. I’m sick of all these choices I have every day. What I can drive, who will cover me medically, what I can eat… I think that the UN should run the world. Just look how well they have been handling things since their conception! Why, they’re almost as efficient as our federal government as it runs social security, medicare, medicade, post office etc…(Do I hear someone calling for help?) Just because our constitution forbids any such treaties from affecting us, do you think that would stop our own president from his dreams? Do you think our president is smart enough to get around that pesky constitution? I’m ashamed of you Rafe! He’s the smartest president we ever had!(I feel a tingle up my leg!) So keep up the good work Rafe. We count on guys like you to slow things down so that the true message can creep up on everyone before they realize it’s too late to do anything. Remember….Hope and Change … Hope and Change… Hope and Change… Hope and Change… OK… the voices are gone now. I have to go get something to eat now.

      BRAINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BRAINS!!!!!!!!!!!! BRAINS!!!!!!!!!!!! HOPE AND CHANGE!!!!!!

      • Samuel permalink
        October 21, 2009 5:40 am

        Wow, oldwolves, let us hope ObamaCare covers that deep of tongue in cheek extraction.

        Enjoyed the read.


    • swemson permalink
      October 21, 2009 10:03 pm

      I’ve seen a number of people on other blogs react negatively to anything Lord Monckton says… Typical comments are… “He’s a well known liar” and other baseless crap like that….

      Lord Monckton’s critics always conveniently leave out the fact that as a result of a suit brought in the British Courts, the High Court issued a ruling that Al Gore’s movie could only be shown in British Public schools if the film’s political bias, and the following blatant errors in its content were first explained to the students:

      The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

      The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

      The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

      The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

      The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

      The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

      The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

      The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

      The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

      The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m (23 ft) causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm (15.7 “) over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

      The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

      The AGW hysteria, is, without question, the single biggest scientific hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. How any of those bastards can stand up in public and spout this nonsense with a straight face is absolutely beyond me.

  7. Petronius permalink
    October 21, 2009 5:52 am

    Lord Monckton. Obviously another British eccentic. Some mothers do ‘ave ’em.

  8. October 21, 2009 8:08 am

    If the treaty is signed, isn’t this were Texas and other states can succeed from the union and no longer be held to the treaty?

  9. gatekeeper96740 permalink
    October 21, 2009 8:08 am

    I heard Lord Monckton on Glenn Beck.He was wonderful. Glenn said if the could arrange it he would have him on for a full hour this week.

  10. Michael McCanles permalink
    October 21, 2009 9:46 am

    Actually, if Obama signs the treaty it may well go the way of the famous Kyoto item: in order for the treaty to become law in the U. S. the Senate has to ratify it, and I suspect that is where it can and will be stopped. The Kyoto treaty was never ratified by the Senate.

    From another direction, If L. Monckton says what he says, that means that there’s lots of people who despise Obama and the democrats who will say the same thing.

    My point is simple: Obama has been making love to an uprising of the American people against his regime. I propose that instead of ratifiying this nonsense, the Republicans start rolling the log of impeachment.

    A treaty so blantantly abhorrent contains within itself the seeds of its own rejection.

    Let us not forget that Obama’s stupidity and blindness is one of the greatest assets those who oppose him possess.

    • Stephen Brady permalink
      October 21, 2009 11:26 am

      I’ve read the draft of the Copenhagen treaty, and it actually includes Kyoto and Bali. One can only hope that the Republican senators who might be bribed into voting for ratification realize what would happen to them in next year’s elections.

      I agree with you that, under normal political circumstances, this treaty will not be ratified.

  11. Judy permalink
    October 21, 2009 11:37 am

    Earlier this year, Nancy Pelosi spoke at a fund raiser in Orange County California and the subjects , of property rights, global warming and US accountability, and gun control was raised. She herself stated that one of the goals of the second year in the Obama administration was to hold a CC (Constitutional Convention) to address those specific three issues. You get where this is going. With the clear majority, any and all changes to the Constitution will have to be made prior to next years elections. This is frightening on so many levels. This is nothing more that removing us from our property, the right to have guns to protect us from external dangers and the re-distribution of wealth to third world countries to create social and economic equality.

    • swemson permalink
      October 21, 2009 12:13 pm

      I’ve been hearing similar things, but with a slightly different interpretation… & I’m not sure which is true…

      Clearly if our current congress were to vote on changes to the constitution, we’d have a problem.. but someone described the process to me this way:

      If 2/3 rds of the states demand that the Supreme court declare a new Con Con, the court MUST grant it. At that point, the vote on any changes, new amendments etc, wouldn’t be based on the make up of congress, but rather on a strict state by state vote… one state, one vote.

      Two thirds of the STATES must ratify the changes, not two thirds of the voters…

      If it were to work that way, I think we might have an excellent chance to prevail…

      • VNVet permalink
        October 21, 2009 12:59 pm

        First of all, a Constitutional Convention would open up the entire Constitution for possible amendment not just specific issues desired by certain people. In order to have a Constitutional Convention called it has to be requested by a 2/3 majority of the states. Furthermore, in order to effect ratification, any proposed amendments have to be approved by a 3/4 majority of the states.

        • swemson permalink
          October 21, 2009 3:36 pm

          So as long as the majority of voters in 2/3rds of the states are sufficiently pissed off at the damn commies who have taken over our govt, we wouldn’t have to worry about things the left could do to further DESTROY the country envisioned by our founding fathers… correct ?

          I hear people occasionally saying that a new con con would be the worst thing possible, because then the leftists can repeal the 2nd Amendment & all sorts of other evil crap… It gets confusing…

  12. trickyblain permalink
    October 21, 2009 12:57 pm

    500:1 that no person posting below has a Conlaw course under his belt, let alone a Constitutional lawyer. 2,000:1 that no person posting below is a respected member of the scientific community, let alone a climatologist. 1,000,000,00:1 that the closest we’ll get to a civil war in the foreseeable future is a dozen or so losers (anti-Americans) plotting acts of domestic terrorism in one of their mother’s basement.

    “National sovereignty”? Wah. There’s nothing unconstitutional about a treaty. NATO? ABM? Maritime? Pollution? Hello? There are lots of treaties…how is this materially different from any of hundreds of treaties?

    • Steve R permalink
      October 21, 2009 6:11 pm

      and THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is what passes for logical argument among progressives.

    • Fritz Becker permalink
      October 21, 2009 7:25 pm

      Tell us about how wonderful Obama, the Climate Treaty, and the U.N are when you are working in the rice fields along with the rest of us when these cats get their way. The US constitution is clearly self explanatory, it is not written in Latin and you do not need a law degree to figure it out. What interpretation do you need for 2/3rds of the states need to approve a constitutional amendment or ask for a constitutional convention. What are the odds on either happening with the states being roughly 55% Democrat, 45% percent Republican controled? How about zero?

      • trickyblain permalink
        October 22, 2009 9:54 am

        If the Constitution is self-explanatory, why did the Founders create a supreme court for the purposes of interpreting it?

    • Stephen Brady permalink
      October 21, 2009 9:24 pm

      I normally don’t feed the trolls at any website, and am agreed with Oldwolves that you very likely voted for Obama, and probably wouldn’t know a real communist if one of them came up behind you and “closed-fist saluted” you to the side of your head.

      Some suggested reading: Article Six of the US Constitution.

      • trickyblain permalink
        October 22, 2009 9:58 am

        Read it. Read the federalist papers. Read many USC interpretations. What is your point?

        I’m sure my definition of a “Communist” is profoundly different from yours, which is apparently very similar to your definition of “troll”: “Somebody I disagree with.”

    • Kevroc permalink
      October 22, 2009 4:43 am

      QUOTE: “1,000,000,00:1 that the closest we’ll get to a civil war in the foreseeable future is a dozen or so losers (anti-Americans) plotting acts of domestic terrorism in one of their mother’s basement.”

      Why plot from their mother’s basement when there is plenty of room in the WH? They also have a snazzy picnic table and a decent beer selection.

  13. oldwolves permalink
    October 21, 2009 3:16 pm

    Whereas your for mentioned treaties where made to “protect” American sovereignty , this treaty will diminish America.

    I’ll bet 1,000,000 to one you voted for Obama. WAH!

    • trickyblain permalink
      October 22, 2009 9:11 am

      That, good sir, is nothing but conjecture. Many would argue that going to war if Latvia were attacked is not “protecting” US sovereignty. Likewise, if the VAST majority of scientists consider climate change a real threat, and those who flat out deny it’s existence consist many of talking heads and bloggers without a scientifc background, it could be argued that it is, indeed, in our best interest to team with other nations to curtail it.

      The idea that climate change is a hoax that is hoisted upon by Communists in order to control your life is nothing but paranoid nonsense. And I’ll bet, 1,000,000:1, people get that that idea from one or a combination of these two sources: Internet blogs and talk radio. While there is a good amount of sensationalism in regards to climate change, it is also supported by peer-reviewed journals and countless hours of research by folks who know far more about the issue that you, me, or any person posting here.

      To flat out ignore them and instead rely on self-affirming echo-chambers is the epitome of ignorance.

      • swemson permalink
        October 22, 2009 10:23 am

        You’re obviously a TRUE BELIEVER.. because anyone with any brains and intellectual integrity, would understand how big a hoax AGW is on its surface… it’s clearly absurd…

        The earth’s temperatures have been going up and down for millions of years, and in the last hundred years or so, those fluctuations have been in almost perfect synch with increases and decreases in solar activity…

        All of a sudden, the emissions from our SUV’s are responsible for burning up the earth in a cataclysmic way?

        Are you freakin serious ?

        The absurdity of this hoax can be quickly proven by comparing the temperature chart of the last thousand years displayed in the first IPCC report in 1991, (which was 100% in accordance with the real history that all of the other scientists accepted) with the same chart shown in the IPCC reports published in the last few years in which THEY HAVE TOTALLY REVISED THE HISTORICAL FIGURES TO SUIT THEIR THEORY… If you have any integrity you’ll check it out for yourself.

        More recently, as REAL scientists continue to challenge their conclusions, the British university which was the custodian of all of the actual original data, having been asked by many to produce said ORIGINAL data upon which their theories were based, claimed that the original data has somehow been lost or destroyed…


        • trickyblain permalink
          October 22, 2009 11:58 am

          It seems you are the true believer. You seem 100 percent certain that it’s a hoax. A hoax in which the vast majority of climatologists have plotted with liberals to make up anthropomorphic climate change so they can tell you what kind of car you need to drive.

          I am not 100 percent certain that anthropomorphic climate change is occurring. And I’m not going to throw out facts supporting it, because I am a writer, not a climatologist. I am not qualified to say it is, or is not, occurring.

          However, I do know that the vast majority of climatologists agree that the earth is warming, and that humankind is contributing to the problem. Logic tells me it is highly unlikely that they all are perpetrating a massive hoax in order to usher in a new era of new world totalitarian government.

          If this were a hoax, was the Bush administration fooled? Is every major state and federal chamber of commerce fooled? Oil & gas industry? All have publicly gone on record as accepting the idea. Even the cynics in the scientific community (that I’ve read) don’t doubt that it’s occurring, just that there’s probably little we can do about it.

          The arguments about it being a “massive hoax” come not from science, but from purely political belief. Blogs, talk radio and Websites like FPM throw out all kinds of statistics about the sun being closer and how the earth is cooling and how 30 years ago scientists were talking about a new ice age. But, using logic again and rejecting the notion of a worldwide climatologist/Communist plot, wouldn’t scientists see this data and figure it into their findings long before Rush Limbaugh or David Horowitz found it? They would.

          Of course they could all be wrong. If so, great. That’s fantastic news. But as it stands today, the scientific community is largely in agreement. I am not a true believer. Consider this: A group of 3,000 brain surgeons tells me that neurons, using transmitters, can be found in nearly every part of the brain, making up a large percentage of the brain’s pool of synapses. A group of 20 janitors tells me that these brain surgeons are working with incorrect data, and that neurons have nothing to do with the brain. Who am I going to tend to agree with?

          • oldwolves permalink
            October 22, 2009 2:14 pm

            Global anomalies are normal. The earth’ temperatures have been fluctuating for millions of years. 1500 year cycles. And guess what? We’re entering into…15 centuries after the last fluctuation.

            As for a hoax? Well I don’t know how old you are but I was supposed to freeze to death about thirty years ago. Scientist swore that we were all going to die frozen. OOPS!

            Did liberals begin this plot? Doubtful. They’re more likely to let some scientific crackpots put themselves on the line and jump on the bandwagon so they can hide in the back. Democrats are much more likely to take stands on things that will hurt America and profit them. Al gore for an example. Cap and trade will make him millions of dollars a year just through his stock options alone.

            Could the government be fooled? Of course! Aren’t you guys on the left always claiming how stupid bush was? Have you ever seen Obama without a teleprompter? Uhh…I…Uhh ……..

            There is little we can do about it? Of course we can! Just change the suns patterns, end all volcanic activity and stop the cows from farting! See, how much easier can it be?

            Remember that it’s CO 2 thats destroying the world. (Even though all the correlations that these ‘ scientist’ have used have been proven WRONG! But let’s not have facts cloud up the issues.( My personal favorite is when Al Gore showed the chart showing the correlation between CO 2 rising and the earths temperatures rising. But when NASA and NOAA revised their numbers due to faulty figures, they showed the earths temperatures rising causing the CO 2 to rise! OOPS!

            As for your Surgeons VS. Janitors metaphor… I found out that the Janitors were Brain surgeons untill Obama ‘s Stimulas took affect and they closed down all the hospitals they were working in. The surgeons talking about the neurons were the ones who donated to the Democratic party.

            Go figure.

            • swemson permalink
              October 22, 2009 5:53 pm

              The following website is a always a good tool to use against these brain dead fools..

              One must make sure to paste the entire URL into the browser’s url filed in order to reach the site..


              Th actual Newsweek article from 2005 preaching a global cooling crisis, is also interesting…


              There have been 4 separate climate crisis’s promoted by the media & newspapers over the last hundred years…

              Why should we believe them now ???

      • oldwolves permalink
        October 22, 2009 11:34 am

        Vast Majority? Then how come you see so many change their mind from ‘a dangerous situation’ to ‘we were wrong’? Every model has been subjected to rigorous examination and found wanting.

        When The Global warming,….excuse me… Climate change alarmist, (we have to change the name now because in spite of the fact that the world is actually cooling we can’t have the sheep start thinking we were wrong) are asked to debate with real scientist(I mean those other than gardeners and weathermen on local TV stations that were on the last “consensus” list), they get cold feet! Why not have a debate live on TV, in front of millions of people?

        You keep harping on the point that those who disagree are”talking heads and bloggers without a scientific background”, yet you blithely ignore the hundreds of actual scientist who disprove the global warming scam through scientific methods! Why?

        Where communism comes in on this issue is somewhat obscure. Nations unfriendly towards the US would love for us to go with ‘cap and trade’ and ‘Kyoto’ because they know that these would damage our country tremendously. Seeing us self destruct for a false cause would make them very happy.( One reason I believe Obama got the Noble peace prize. Trying to influence Mr. World President to screw over his country.)

        “To flat out ignore them and instead rely on self-affirming echo-chambers is the epitome of ignorance.”

        Again your premise is false. We want to debate. But your side refuses. I think you should rephrase that to,

        “To flat out follow them instead of relying on scientific debate and facts is the epitome of ignorance.”

        We of the conservative stripe wish to understand. The liberal stripe seems to demand obedience and acceptance.

        And I’ll bet 1,000,000 to 1 that you’ll never see a sheep with left leaning stripes. Unless a mirror is handy.

        • trickyblain permalink
          October 22, 2009 12:04 pm

          Nice rundown of cliches. Who are these hundreds of scientists? Where are their findings? Oh, yeah, they are being subverted by that liberal administration/media that is bent of destroying the nation they and their families live in.

          The earth is cooling? lol. The hottest years on record are all within the past decade.

          • swemson permalink
            October 22, 2009 5:24 pm

            Hey folks…

            When confronted with true believers like this putz, it’s a waste of time trying to talk to him…


            If you give him some of the names of the most respected and well credentialed scientists who refute the AGW hoax, the next thing he’ll do is laugh at them, insult their integrity, and dismiss them with BS claims that their work isn’t “peer reviewed”.. I’ve seen this many times before… he’s a troll, a spoiler, and heckler…

            These creeps want to try to sucker you into a scientific debate, through which they can throw their BS propaganda at you…

            The ONLY way to deal with these morons is to ignore them…

      • Fritz Becker permalink
        October 22, 2009 7:39 pm

        So if the vast majority of scientists decided to take a poll, and agreed that the sun revolved around the Earth and that snow was black that would mean that both statements are scientific truths? Scientific truth isn’t based on consensus it’s based on empirical evidence conformed by peer reviewed scientific experiments, in other words an experiment can be repeated over and over again with the same result, yielding the same data, by whoever tries to re-create it.
        So lets take a look at the Earth warming/Climate Change issue and what questions need to be answered with hard evidence. Is a warming actually occurring and if so is the warming anything outside of fluctuations of a normal climatic cycle? If the warming is outside the norm what is causing it? Is it caused by natural phenomena or is it caused by human activity? If it is caused by human activity activity is there anything that can be done to correct it?
        So far I hear a lot of conclusions but not enough answers backed up by empirical evidence. The Al Gore and Environmental crowd are big on advocating huge and expensive state sponsored solutions while engaging in ad hominum attacks against anyone questioning their conclusions by comparing them to Holocaust deniers.

        • swemson permalink
          October 22, 2009 8:42 pm

          Excellent point about how science is conducted Fritz !

          It should be noted that one of the most egregious lies of the AGW movement’s is the entire idea that a consensus has been reached by all scientists.. Nothing could be further from the truth…

          The IPCC originally claimed that they had 2,500 scientists working on the problem. In fact there were roughly 250 scientists, while the rest were bureaucrats, environmental activists, and members of the environmental media… Al Gore later expanded the lie to say that the actual number was 4,000 scientists…

          Another interesting fact is that many of the IPCC “primary authors” of their reports resigned when they saw what a sham it was, and then had to sue the IPCC to force them to take their names off the reports.

          The fact is that there is nothing either unusual or threatening about the current climate statistics. In the last thousand years, the earth has been roughly 4 degrees (Celsius) above the average, (the medieval warm period) and roughly 3.5 degrees below the average (the little ice age which we’ve only recently finished rebounding from). At current, we’re rough;y 0.6 degrees above the average (again.. nothing unusual there) and it is a proven fact, that the warming cycle ended in 1998, and that the earth has been slowly but consistently cooling for the last 7 years…

          It’s also been proved that CO2 levels have almost zero effect on global temperatures, which vary according to solar activity in an almost perfect correlation.

          CO2 represents less than half of 1% (0.50%) of the entire atmosphere (770 Giga Tons). The amount of the total CO2 that is man made (from the use of fossil fuels 27 GT). represents roughly 4/10ths of 1% of the earth’s total CO2 (0.40%). We’re literally talking about trace elements that are measured in terms of PPM (Parts per million) which is currently at roughly 320PPM (0.00032% of the atmosphere).

          What these numbers mean is that after millions of years of REAL climate shifts on this planet, these clowns are now saying that all of a sudden, the warming cycle that we just went through (which started in 1840 btw) is completely due to the emissions coming from our SUV’s, (which once again equals about 0.00032% of our atmosphere…

          Someone please pinch me.. every time I think of these facts I get dizzy..

          The biggest part of the con of course is that all life on earth thrives in the warm periods… There’s nothing to be feared at all from warming…. (Polar Bear populations have increased by 200% to 400% in the last 40 years and possibly much more.) It’s only cooling that we need to be concerned about… Not mind you, that we could do anything to stop it of course… no more than we can stop tsunamis, hurricanes or earthquakes….

          And the ultimate irony is that of all people, our new messiah has hired John Holdren as his climate advisor… The same John Holdren, who, 34 years ago was screaming about the coming ice age which was going to destroy us all….

          See the following article from Newsweek from 1975:

          This is the 4th climate panic that these so called experts have promoted with the help of the media (catastrophes sell newspapers you know) in the last hundred years…

          The last three were BULLS*^T..

          Why should we believe this one ?

  14. October 21, 2009 8:13 pm

    this video is only the tip of the lies…america is already under communist rule.

    • Stephen Brady permalink
      October 21, 2009 9:28 pm

      A half-truth exists in your post. Yes, America is already in the grips of communists and their fellow-travelers, aided by the useful idiots in the media. That said, Lord Moncton spoke powerful truths in this 4 minute and 13 second video clip.

      Nothing in this post is intended to be a slam against you, if your post had a different purpose than what I read in it.

  15. oldwolves permalink
    October 22, 2009 2:24 pm

    “The earth is cooling? lol. The hottest years on record are all within the past decade.”

    This is a typical lie from the left. They find two or three temperature readings from a single day and claim they are proof that the temperatures are rising. Perhaps trickyblain is simply living up to his name. When “Scientist” add up all the temperatures over a YEAR, they have found, when averaged out, that the year in total, has temperatures colder that the years before.

    Silly Trickyblain, tricks are for kids!

    • swemson permalink
      October 22, 2009 6:01 pm

      One of the interesting parts of the puzzle that few understand, is that in the years that the northern ice cap & sea ice diminish, they’re always offset by a similar or greater increase in the antarctic ice sheets & free floating sea ice…

      In the IPCC’s totally fabricated new chart of the earth’s temperature history, the completely eliminated the medieval warm period, and if you read the fine print you’ll see that the data used for the current part of the chart is based ONLY on Northern Hemisphere readings…

      In fact, the entire polarity of the earth switches ever so often…. The last time it happened was over 700,000 years ago….

    • Fritz Becker permalink
      October 22, 2009 8:04 pm

      You may may have also noticed that they have a double standard on what constitutes a trend. Now that there is some evidence that the average temperature flat lined in 1998 and is now going down they insist that ten years doesn’t make a trend out of five billion. However, if they have three or more years with an above average temperature that constitutes a trend. Anything that supports their argument, they emphasize even if it’s false, if anything contradicts their argument they ignore it.
      Even if you did back into history the hottest summer on record was in 1934, interesting that the 1930s was also the period of one of the longest droughts. What is also interesting is that there were more droughts in the first half of the 20th century then there was in the second half, in spite of the increase in the use of fossil fuels from 1950 onward. Of course there is also that pesky detail, as has been mentioned before, of record cold winters during the 1970s and how we were supposed to be headed towards another ice age.

      • swemson permalink
        October 22, 2009 8:56 pm


        Did you know, that in Algor’s hometown of Nashville, the record low temperature that had been standing since 1877, during the closing days of the little ice age, a cool 132 years ago, was shattered on July 21, 2009 by more than 2 degrees?

      • oldwolves permalink
        October 23, 2009 3:57 am

        The left lives for double standards Fritz, in almost everything they argue or try to defend. And again I see your trying to confuse the issue with facts and history! Bad, bad, Fritz!

        One good thing though about when The left makes predictions. You know what to invest in. So do they. I wonder how many ‘green’ people and ‘green’ companies have investments in ‘Green’ products? I always say follow the money. I forget the billionaires name who wants solar power to be the newest answer. He’s got hundreds of millions invested of course. But it’s all for the good of the earth, right?
        Funny fact time. Since the loony left has been predicting the ICE MELTING AND FLOODING THE WORLDS SHORELINE SCAM, beachfront properties have been selling like mad. I would love to know if it’s just liberals taking advantage of the panic they are creating or is it republicans depending on the track record of the left predicted disasters? Time to invest. I think I’ll by some Euros and Yen and invest them in Nuke Power Plants.

  16. Jack Samwell permalink
    October 22, 2009 2:32 pm

    If you would like to hear Lord Monckton on Glen Beck’s radio broadcast ive two link here:


  17. Dean permalink
    October 22, 2009 3:01 pm

    Please don’t simply take the presenter’s word for what is contained in the treaty. The treaty he is most likely refering to is the PROPOSED treaty which you can read here:

    This will not be passed as is, I can guarantee you. Remember, despite conservative scare tactics, Obama still has strong ties to various corporations and unions. He does not wish to disturb the status quo if he doesn’t have to. He is a centerist, but he was elected on a platform of change, so I assume he will sign a watered down form of the bill.
    Just for fun, lets say that by some chance the treaty was signed without any changes. America does not exactly have a history of keeping to its agreements. If you don’t believe me, google “NAFTA disputes” or remember way back to the start of the Iraq war, when the US started an “illegal” war in the eyes of the UN, a world governing body. That didn’t actually affect American actions very much now did it?

    • oldwolves permalink
      October 23, 2009 4:02 am

      “He does not wish to disturb the status quo if he doesn’t have to. He is a centerist”

      Are you talking about Obama?


      OH ….Ohh……My lordy. You had me there for a second Dean. A centrist. Look. Look ,there’s a tear running down my eye.

  18. Colette permalink
    October 22, 2009 10:06 pm

    “Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we
    received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right
    to receive from us.”

    Thomas Jefferson (Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms, 6

    July 1775)

  19. Rhodi permalink
    October 23, 2009 12:56 pm

    “Again your premise is false. We want to debate. But your side refuses. I think you should rephrase that to, “To flat out follow them instead of relying on scientific debate and facts is the epitome of ignorance.”
    We of the conservative stripe wish to understand. The liberal stripe seems to demand obedience and acceptance.
    And I’ll bet 1,000,000 to 1 that you’ll never see a sheep with left leaning stripes. Unless a mirror is handy.”

    Obaaaaaaama! Sheep are not very bright!

    • swemson permalink
      October 23, 2009 1:25 pm

      Not BAAAAAAaaaaad !


  20. Bill in CA permalink
    October 24, 2009 2:24 pm

    I heard on Fox News this morning that Comrade Obama said that he wouldn’t sign the golbal warming treaty. I have a certain bridge in New York City and some beach fron property in Nevada that I am willing to sell to you if you believe him. Just look at his record on his promises, he never keeps them.

  21. Sean Surrey permalink
    October 25, 2009 5:05 pm

    AS A SIDE NOTE… (Sorry about the caps)

    I just picked up my Popular Mechanics Magazine and there is an article that I think our Global alarmist really should look over. In the Nov 2009 issue , page twenty, there’s an article that ties into my previous cow fart comment. (Concerning the left loonies wanting to tax farmers who have cows because their farts have methane) (No seriously, stop laughing) Any way, It’s called ‘What seeps below’ and it’s been discovered that in the sea bed there is more methane gas trapped there than all other fossil fuels throughout the world combined! And that the scientist have found over 250 columns of bubbles spewing ….wait for it… Da da dummmmmmm. Methane! Most of the methane doesn’t break through the surface however, but remains mixed in with the ocean water. But Wait! There’s more! If you order now…. Uh excuse me I got carried away. Here’s my point.

    Now remember how people pollution has been blamed for the acidification of the worlds oceans? OOPS! Turns out that we are not doing what the “Scientist”, have been stating, as a God sure fact after all! Mother nature is to blame!And apparently there’s another little corker of a fact that seems to be making it a problem for the global warming chicken littles. These Methane columns may be whats causing the arctic ice to melt!OOPS! AGAIN! That’s right! These waters that are saturated with Methane are the same currents heading toward the ice.

    Son of a gun.

    Now let me ask you. Why aren’t these new discoveries being made widely known?

  22. Samuel permalink
    October 28, 2009 5:33 am

    Thankfully Stephen’s interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. In the clause where it says: …”any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” is discussing the state’s constitutions not the federal Constitution. So a state can’t make a law or put anything in their constitution that would violate a treaty.

    The Founders would not have put a poison pill in the Constitution that would allow for some rogue president to make a treaty with another country making us subjects again.

    People’s worries are justified however, and we have already seen the creeping of the rights infringement by treaty, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is one example.


  23. oldwolves permalink
    October 28, 2009 7:02 am

    My biggest fear is if the supreme court does get the 5 liberal to 4 conservative balance. Then what will there to be to stop the UN from running the USA? Our president is a liberal, our congress is liberal, our senate is liberal… So if the supreme court swings left, who will there be to say NO?

    There will be no more checks and balances! Just Unpaid checks made by the unbalanced that we as Americans have to pay for. Please someone tell me I’m wrong?

    • Samuel permalink
      October 28, 2009 8:47 am

      Hi oldwolves,

      Your fear is legitimate, and bears keeping a close eye on. However, I have never talked to a Constitutional scholar, even a liberal one, that would claim a treaty trumps the Constitution. But you never know what rationalizations might be made. For example, during the coming currency crisis, will the progressives be happy to trade sovereignty for currency support?

      When things start to cascade down, the Constitution may be our only safety net.


  24. Oldwolves permalink
    October 28, 2009 11:14 am

    Hi Samuel,
    That’s just my point. It shouldn’t trump our constitution. But if the liberal posse, who currently run things, get the help of a liberal supreme court , who’s to stop them? There is no back up if the supreme court is also compromised! The damage will be devastating.

  25. 8i11i3 permalink
    November 9, 2009 8:01 am

    President Obama is so slick he would sign it so we wont have to vote him out of office. He wants to become the last president.

Comments are closed.