Climate Change, They’re Baaaccckkk…


Pardon me, but one look at this woman tells me everything…I’m sorry, I had to. I’ll leave it at that…

Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor

  • Global warming alarmist equates climate denial with racism

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, March 30, 2012

Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.

Norgaard equates skepticism of climate change alarmists – whose data is continually proven to be politicized, agenda driven and downright inaccurate – with racism, noting that overcoming such viewpoints poses a similar challenge “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.”

“Professor Norgaard considers that fuzzy-studies academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists who know some maths in an effort to change society and individuals for their own good. It’s not a new idea: trick-cyclists in Blighty and the US have lately called for a “science of communicating science” rather reminiscent of Isaac Asimov’s science-fictional “Psychohistory” discipline, able to predict and alter the behaviour of large populations,” reports the Register.

As Jurriaan Maessen documented yesterday, the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ confab at which Norgaard is appearing to push this insane drivel is nothing other than a strategy session for neo-eugenicists to hone their population control agenda.

A statement put out by the scientists behind the event calls for humans to be packed into denser cities (eco-gulags?) so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature. It’s a similar idea to the nightmare ‘Planned-Opolis’ proposal put out by the Forum for the Future organization last year, in which human activity will be tightly regulated by a dictatorial technocracy in the name of saving the planet.

  • The mindset of this gaggle of arrogant, scoffing elitists in their drive to micro-manage the human race, which they regard as a plague on the earth, is best encapsulated by the following quote from ‘Planet Under Pressure’ attendee and Yale University professor Karen Seto.

“We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together],” Seto told MSNBC.

The effort to re-brand legitimate scientific dissent as a mental disorder that requires pharmacological or psychological treatment is a frightening glimpse into the Brave New World society climate change alarmists see themselves as ruling over.

Due to the fact that skepticism towards man-made global warming is running at an all time high, and with good reason, rather than admit they have lost the debate, climate change alarmists are instead advocating that their ideological opponents simply be drugged or brainwashed into compliance.

Norgaard’s effort to equate climate skepticism with racism as a disorder that requires “treatment” also serves as a reminder of the story we covered earlier this month about the establishment’s efforts to push the pharmaceutical heart drug Propranolol as a “cure” for racist thoughts.

Obama Stepping on His Own Foot..


No one can help you screw up like yourself when you’re on a roll. This one is from Charles Hurt of the Washington Post, and it’s spot on…


The past seven brutal days will go down as one of the worst weeks in history for a sitting president. It certainly has been, without any doubt, the worst week yet for President Obama.

Somehow, Mr. Obama managed to embarrass himself abroad, humiliate himself here at home, see his credentials for being elected so severely undermined that it raises startling questions about whether he should have been elected in the first place — let alone be re-elected later this year.


• Last Friday, Mr. Obama wandered into the killing of Trayvon Martin. Aided by his ignorance of the situation, knee-jerk prejudices and tendency toward racial profiling, Mr. Obama played a heavy hand in elevating a tragic situation in which a teenager was killed into a full-blown hot race fight.

Americans, he admonished, need to do some “soul-searching.” And then, utterly inexplicably, he veered off into this bizarre tangent about how he and the poor dead kid look so much alike they could be father and son. It was election-year race-pandering gone horribly wrong.

• By the start of this week, Mr. Obama had fled town and was racing to the other side of the planet just as the Supreme Court was taking up the potentially-embarrassing matter of Obamacare. While in South Korea he was caught on a hidden mic negotiating with the president of our longest-standing rival on how to sell America and her allies down the river once he gets past the next election.

• Meanwhile, back at home, the Supreme Court took up the single most important achievement of Mr. Obama’s presidency and, boy, was it embarrassing. The great constitutional law professor, it turns out, may not quite be the wizard he told us he was.

By most accounts, Mr. Obama and his stuttering lawyers were all but laughed out of the courthouse. They were even stumbling over softball questions lobbed by Mr. Obama’s own hand-picked justices.

• Mr. Obama closed his week pulling off a nearly unimaginable feat: He managed to totally and completely unify the nastily-fighting Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Late Wednesday night, they unanimously voted — 414 to zip — to reject the budget Mr. Obama had presented, leaving him not even a thin lily’s blade to hide behind.

So, in one week, Mr. Obama got caught whispering promises to our enemy, incited a race war, raised serious questions about his understanding of the Constitution, and then got smacked down over his proposed budget that was so wildly reckless that even Democrats in Congress could not support it.

It was as if you lumped Hurricane Katrina and the Abu Ghraib abuses into one week for George W. Bush. And added on top of that the time he oddly groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel and got caught cursing on a hot mic.

Even then, it wouldn’t be as bad as Mr. Obama’s week. You would probably also have to toss in the time Mr. Bush’s father threw up into the lap of Japan’s prime minister. Only then might we be approaching how bad a week it was for Mr. Obama.

Not that you will see any trace of embarrassment in the face of Mr. Obama. He has mastered the high political art of shamelessness, wearing it smugly and cockily. Kind of like a hoodie.

Conservatives Now Linked to Less Brainpower

Comments Off

Came over this little ditty at Pardon while I run off and continue laughing while you read this. Oh, and when you’re done, remember it’s the conservatives that hold to the values of the Constitution, while liberals wish it to change constantly….I guess that takes some thought? Oh Snap, SCOTUS…didn’t count on that one…

Is Conservatism Our Default Ideology?
New research provides evidence that, when under time pressure or otherwise cognitively impaired, people are more likely to express conservative views.
By Tom Jacobs


According to a recent Gallup poll, 40 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative, while only 21 percent call themselves liberal. (Another 35 percent are self-identified moderates.)
This gap has long puzzled scholars. If left and right ideologies comprise a mutually dependent yin-yang system, reflecting different approaches to meeting our most basic needs, shouldn’t they be held by roughly the same proportion of people?
One possible explanation is that some “conservatives” wear the label quite loosely. Another points to the long-established link between right-wing attitudes and a tendency to perceive the world as threatening. In an era where the latest scare is constantly being hyped on television and the Internet, it stands to reason that conservatism would dominate.
Newly published research proposes a somewhat different, and quite provocative, answer.
A research team led by University of Arkansas psychologist Scott Eidelman argues that conservatism — which the researchers identify as “an emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a preference for the status quo” — may be our default ideology. If we don’t have the time or energy to give a matter sufficient thought, we tend to accept the conservative argument.
“When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient,” the researchers write in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. “These conditions promote conservative ideology.”
Eidelman and his colleagues’ paper will surely outrage many on the left (who will resist the notion of conservatism as somehow natural) and the right (who will take offense to the idea that their ideology is linked to low brainpower). The researchers do their best to preemptively answer such criticism.
“We do not assert that conservatives fail to engage in effortful, deliberate thought,” they insist. “We find that when effortful thought is disengaged, the first step people take tends to be in a conservative direction.”
The researchers describe four studies that provide evidence backing up their thesis. In each case, they used a different method to disrupt the process of deliberation, and found that doing so increased the odds of someone espousing conservative views.
Their first method was a time-tested one: inebriation. Researchers stood outside the exit of a busy New England tavern and offered to measure patrons’ blood alcohol level if they would fill out a short survey. Eighty-five drinkers agreed, expressing their opinions of 10 statements such as “production and trade should be free of government interference.”
“Bar patrons reported more conservative attitudes as their level of alcohol intoxication increased,” the researchers report.
A second experiment featured 38 University of Maine undergraduates who filled out a similar survey. Half did so while working on “a distraction task” that required them to listen closely to a tape of tones that varied in pitch.
Those who had to do two things at once, and were thus under a heavier “cognitive load,” were more likely than their peers to endorse conservative attitudes, and less likely to endorse liberal positions.
In a third experiment, participants under time pressure were more likely to endorse conservative viewpoints than those who were not. In a fourth experiment, those asked to “give your first, immediate response” were more likely to express support for words and phrases linked to conservatism (such as “law and order” and “authority”) than those who were instructed to “really put forth effort and consider the issue.”
Eidelman notes that this dynamic was found with different populations (college students and bar patrons) and in people from different parts of the country (three of the experiments were conducted in Maine, a fourth in Arkansas). He adds just one caveat: “Largely, our sample consisted of political centrists.”
“Ideology is multiply determined, coming from many sources, including values, experience, history and culture,” the researchers note. It’s unclear whether this rightward drift would occur in a population of strongly committed but cognitively overloaded liberals.
Similarly, it’s not certain whether die-hard right-wingers would express even more conservative views under these conditions. What does seem clear is that our first impulse tends to be to stick with the tried and true, and this attitude aligns better with conservative ideas than liberal ones.
“The bad news for liberals is we’re saying that conservatism has a certain psychological advantage,” Eidelman said. “The bad news for conservatives is that someone who has a knee-jerk conservative reaction may change their mind about an issue after giving it more thought.”
Of course, it’s an open question as to what percentage of the population genuinely ponders political issues, rather than simply going with their initial instincts. This suggests liberals face a significant challenge in converting people to their cause.
As Eidelman puts it: “It might take a little extra effort to convince yourself (to support a liberal position), and a little extra work to convince others.

Supreme Court poised to strike down entire healthcare law

1 Comment

Reporting from Washington—

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court’s liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.” But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

Read more

Bruceton Police Chief Injured in Dog Attack

Comments Off

Bruceton Police Chief Ronnie Stewart is hospitalized at Vanderbilt Medical Center after being attacked by two pit bulls.

City leaders told 7 Eyewitness News Chief Stewart was at his daughter;s home near Camden, Sunday, playing outside with his 2-year-old granddaughter when the dogs, which belonged to the chief’s daughter charged the pair.

Officers said Stewart was able to toss the toddler onto a trampoline but was attacked by the dogs. He suffered serious injuries to his left hand and right arm. The child was not hurt. A Benton County deputy shot one of the animals. The other was taken by animal control.

Stewart has been chief in Bruceton for more than 20 years.


Scientists Cure Cancer, But No One Takes Notice

Comments Off

Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have recently cured cancer, yet there is but little ripple in the news or on TV. It is a simple technique using a very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders, so there is no concern of side effects or other long term effects.

The drug doesn’t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies.

Canadian scientists tested dichloroacetate (DCA) on human cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, but why are the major drug companies not involved, or the media not interested in this find?

In human cells there is a natural cancer fighting organelle, the mitochondria, but it needs to be triggered in order to be effective. Scientists used to think that the mitochondria of cancerous cells were damaged and thus ineffective. They used to focus on glycolysis, which is less effective in fighting cancer and wasteful. The drug manufacturers focused on the glycolysis method to fight cancer. DCA treatment on the other hand doesn’t rely on glycolysis but instead on reactivating the mitochondria; which allows the cell to die and prevents the cancer from spreading.

This reactivation is a process called apoptosis. You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that cannot be pressed in cancer cells. Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished. Fully functioning mitochondria, thanks to DCA, can once again be allowed to die.

With glycolysis turned off, the body produces less lactic acid, so the bad tissue around cancer cells doesn’t break down and seed new tumors.

Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, and without a patent they cannot make money. They’re currently making fortunes with their AIDS patent.

This article hopes to raise more awareness of dichloroacetate, and to hopefully inspire some independent companies and small startups to pick up on this idea and begin producing life-saving drugs… because the big companies won’t be touching it for a long time.

Note: You can watch the video from which this article was written here. Please help others become aware of this article and share it by hitting the like button below. You never know how you may help someone just because you clicked the mouse a few times.

Read more

Free Speech Zones: A Danger to the 1st Amendment

Comments Off

I predict the first time this Trespass Bill is challenged, it will fall. You can’t do away with the 1st amendment by passing a law, you MUST amend the Constitution and the majority of States MUST agree to it. The vote was 388-to-3 . I know Ron Paul voted against it, but don’t know who the other two were.

Supreme Court turns to key constitutional issue in health-care law

Comments Off

Day two at the ObamaCare oral arguments went well for Texas. ObamaCare is on life support. The Justices hammered Obama’s lawyer, repeatedly raising the concern that ObamaCare overreaches too far into our individual liberty. Justice Kennedy said: “This is unprecedented. It’s beyond what our cases allow.” He added that ObamaCare fundamentally alters the relationship between the government and individuals. Chief Justice Roberts said upholding ObamaCare would create a slippery slope that could give Congress unlimited power to force you to buy things. Justice Scalia pushed back hard against ObamaCare, suggesting that it exceeds the enumerated powers given to Congress under the constitution. Today we are closer to the end of ObamaCare.


The Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared deeply skeptical that the Constitution gives Congress the power to compel Americans to either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, as the court completed two hours of debate Tuesday on the key component of the nation’s health-care overhaul law.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, traditionally the justice most likely to side with the court’s liberals, suggested that the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act invoked a power “beyond what our cases allow” the Congress to wield in regulating interstate commerce.

“Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” he asked.

The arguments revealed a familiar alignment of the court. Its four liberal justices, appointed by Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, supported the government’s argument. But one of the five conservatives appointed by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush would be needed to uphold the act, and all at some point resisted the government’s position. Their sharp questioning raised doubts about whether the individual insurance mandate could survive the Supreme Court’s historic review.

Kennedy and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would seem to hold the key to the court’s eventual decision, which likely will come near the end of the court’s term in June. But a caveat is appropriate: while the justices’ questions often foreshadow their decisions, that is not always the case, especially in cases with high stakes and constitutional questions.

Read more

Kagan Sits in Judgment of Obamacare Instead of Recusing Herself

Comments Off

Kagan will obviously vote in favor of Obamacare and should have recused herself because of her involvement with Obamacare before it was law. But she didn’t….what a disgrace to the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court on Monday began hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA “Obamacare”—Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan showed up to hear the arguments and gave no indication she would recuse herself from judging the cases even though she had cheered enactment of Obamacare as an Obama political appointee and had personally assigned her top deputy in the Obama Justice Department to defend the law in federal court.

Barack Obama, Elena Kagan

A federal law, 28 USC 455, says a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

During her confirmation process in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan assured the committee in written responses to its questionnaire that she would follow the “letter and spirit” of 28 U.S.C. 455.

On Monday, the court heard lawyers’ arguments about whether the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 prevents the court from hearing cases challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare until after someone has had to pay a “penalty” for not buying the health-insurance mandated by the law. Kagan sat in the court as the lawyers presented their arguments and asked questions about the Anti-Injunction Act’s application to the substance of Obamacare.

At one point, Kagan told one of the lawyers that, in Obamacare, Congress had enacted a “regulatory command” to individuals to buy insurance.

Internal Department of Justice documents secured by through the Freedom of Information Act demonstrate that when Kagan was Obama’s solicitor general, charged with defending his administration’s positions in federal court disputes, she personally assigned her top deputy to handle the anticipated legal challenges to Obamacare.

On May 25, 2010, a month before the Senate Judiciary Committee convened confirmation hearings on Kagan’s Supreme court nomination, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of Justice seeking documents related to Kagan’s possible involvement in the Obamacare legislation or litigation and decisions she made on recusing or not recusing herself from cases as solicitor general because they might later come before her were she ever confirmed to a federal court.

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House voted to enact Obamacare, Kagan had an email exchange with Harvard Law Prof. Lawrence Tribe, who at that time was working for the Obama Justice Department. DOJ did not release this email exchange to until Nov. 9, 2011. In it, Kagan expressed glee that Obamacare was going to pass that day.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!!” wrote Obama’s future Supreme Court nominee. “Simply amazing.”

That same day, Associate Attorney General Perrelli sent an email to a number of top DOJ officials, including Katyal, the deputy Kagan had assigned to handle the Obamacare-related litigation. The subject line on the email was: “Health care litigation meeting.”

Perrelli told Katyal and the others there was going to be a meeting the next day at the White House to talk about the lawsuits the administration knew would be filed against the law.

Read more

White on Black, Black on White?

Comments Off

Normally, I try to leave racial stories alone, but this time the president tagged it…”if I had a son, he’d be like Trayvon”. Well, take a look. The story may not be what it seems, plus, why does this story get the national attention it has? Why is it that the president called his mother and made that kind of statement? The story is a little different, according to snopes, nevertheless, it is a true story, but the headlines barely got out of the mid-South in 2007. Where was Barack Obama, and why didn’t he call the parents of these innocent children? It would have been good, since he was campaigning for “change”. It’s hard not to see which side his bread is buttered on, maybe he should have called them up for a beer summit. I will, however post my friend Carl’s email for asking the question that prompted this post. While I want to be fair, I will post the link for snopes. The story changes a little, and there is an attempt at justifying it at the end with OJ trial. Even snopes doesn’t get this one. These are both racially motivated, you just have to question which is worse…


Recently we’ve been bombarded with hourly rants about the heinous, RACIST nature of the incident in Florida where a neighborhood vigilante allegedly “chased down, confronted and murdered” a young black man who was “simply going to the store for snacks.” I don’t know if the allegations are true or not, and I trust the appropriate authorities in Florida will sort it out.

However, the media coverage given to this alleged crime is simply over the top, in my estimation. White (and is it just me? – I think the shooter looks very hispanic) on black violence provokes terrific response from the black community, aided, abetted, encouraged and inflamed by the national media to such an extent that riots and black vigilantism is not only a strong possibility, but a near certainty if the shooter isn’t convicted and executed forthwith.

I want to know where the balance is. Why isn’t black on white crime – especially heinous crime – given the same attention by the national media? They seem to simply note and accept terrible crime perpetrated by black thugs against white victims as simply ho-hum normal. “Move along folks, nothing to see here…” Exactly what should white America take away from that attitude by the national media? Aren’t the lives of innocent white people as important as those of innocent black people? Really… ???

We see instances of wilding against white female joggers by gangs of black thugs and nothing much is said about it on national media. We see horrific, murderous crime against innocent white people by black thugs and nothing much is said about it on national media. Evidently white lives and white dignity are not as important as black lives and dignity to the mainstream national media. Something is very wrong with that picture. Balance is simply not there.

A few years ago, a particularly heinous crime was carried out against two innocent white kids by five black thugs in Knoxville, Tennessee, resulting in the white kids’ prolonged, agonizing and humiliating deaths. They were tortured over a period of four days before they were “allowed” to finally die. They were both raped repeatedly. He had his penis removed while still alive, and she was forced to drink caustic liquids – bleach – to mask the evidence of sexual assault, then partially dismembered while still alive. I expect death must have come as a relief to those two innocents.

It doesn’t get much more heinous than that. But very few people in the country knew about that crime when it happened and it’s nearly forgotten now. It’s mostly well known in the Knoxville area only. The national media didn’t give it more than momentary lip service and it was old news in a hurry. How is that balanced against the hourly rant for Zimmerman’s blood in Florida these days, before the guy is even charged. The New Black Panthers, with a national media blessing, even has a bounty out for Zimmerman’s head.

Where is the balance?? We certainly did NOT see white people (except the Nazis) demonstrating in the street for these black thugs’ blood in Knoxville – and certainly not anywhere else in the country. But then, the national media didn’t report hourly on the crime either. The must not have thought it very newsworthy. They pretty much ignored it because it was a black on white atrocity, not the other way round..

Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers