You Know The Global Warming Hoaxers Are Coming

April 30, 2011
May as well put down a marker, even if the US old media refuses to do so — Tornadoes whipped up by wind, not climate change, say weather officials.

In the aftermath of a severe tornado, owner Frank Evans stands on the rubble that was the Quik Pawn Shop in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.
So we have to go to the AFP(French Press), for the truth about the USA tornadoes …

AFP – US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.

“If you look at the past 60 years of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but it’s agreed upon by the tornado community that it’s not a real increase,” said Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University.

“It’s having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we’re seeing them more often,” Dixon said.

But he said it would be “a terrible mistake” to relate the up-tick to climate change.

The tornadoes that ripped through the US south this week killed over 250 people, in the worst US weather disaster in years, with residents and emergency workers sifting through the rubble on Thursday.

Violent twisters that famously rip through the US south’s “Tornado Alley” are formed when strong jet winds bringing upper-level storms from the north interact with very warm, humid air mass from the Gulf of Mexico, said David Imy from the NOAA Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma.

On Wednesday, a particularly potent storm was whipping up around the heart of that tornado-prone corridor where the states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, eastern Texas and northwest Louisiana meet, noted Kristina Pydynowski, a senior meteorologist at the website.

Sparking the severe thunderstorms from that point was the much warmer air arriving from the south, over the tropical Gulf. The combining winds at differing altitudes, said Pydynowski, created “significant twisting motion in the atmosphere, allowing the strongest thunderstorms to spawn tornadoes.”

Such a mixture would not be prevalent along the US eastern seaboard, so rough weather in that region Thursday would not also spawn tornadoes, at least on the same scale, she said.

Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: “Actually what we’re seeing is springtime,” he said.

“Many people think of Oklahoma as ‘Tornado Alley’ and forget that the southeast United States actually has a history of longer and more powerful tornadoes that stay on the ground longer.”

Wednesday’s deadly tornadoes, according to Imy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, were unusual for being “long track,” meaning they were on the ground for a longer period of time than usual — in this case, roiling across the land for 30 miles (48 kilometers) or more.

An average track would be less than five miles, said Imy.

However, the stronger-than-usual tornadoes affecting the southern states were actually predicted from examining the planet’s climatological patterns, specifically those related to the La Nina phenomenon.

“We knew it was going to be a big tornado year,” he said. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: “It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet.”

Standby, the gloabal warming hoaxers will be right along.

Exxon-Mobile Earnings Perspective

April 30, 2011

There are just things the old media just won’t tell you, now that class warfare is Obama’s campaign slogan for 2012. Things like what Obama’s no drill policy is doing to our oil supply, what the fed is doing to devalue our dollar, yes oil is traded in dollars, and other pertinent data that fuels the Obama demagoguery.

So here is Exxon-Mobil’s earnings in one easy to understand chart:

From Ken Cohen, Exxon-Mobil:

Big numbers make headlines – like our announcement of $10.7 billion in earnings for the first quarter of 2011. What may not make the headlines is the context surrounding that number, so I thought I would share with you what I told reporters following the announcement:

Let me start by putting our earnings into context for U.S. motorists.

ExxonMobil’s earnings are from operations in more than 100 countries around the world. During the first quarter, more than three-quarters of our operating earnings came from outside of the United States.

The part of ExxonMobil’s business that refines and sells gasoline, diesel and other products in the United States represents less than 6 percent – or 6 cents on the dollar – of our earnings.

Why so little? Because we actually buy more crude oil to refine into gasoline and diesel in the U.S. than we produce ourselves. And these purchases are made on the open market at the prevailing rates.

During the first three months of this year, for every gallon of gasoline and other products we refined and sold in the United States, we earned about 7 cents. Compare that to the 40 to 60 cents per gallon that went from gasoline consumers to the government (state and federal) in gasoline taxes.

The underlying question people are asking is: Why are oil prices so high at the present time? The answer to this question is important because the price of crude oil accounts for most of the price of gasoline.

There are several factors involved in the rise in oil prices.

First, as a result of the global economy strengthening – particularly in countries like China, India and Brazil – demand for crude oil is on the rise.

Second, political instability in some oil-producing regions is contributing to uncertainty about future oil supplies. Oil markets are well-supplied today, but the issue is this: What will it cost to replace this supply if it is lost in the future? This uncertainty about tomorrow is reflected in prices today.

Finally, another factor behind higher oil prices is unique to the United States. And that’s the weak U.S. dollar.  Oil and most other food and industrial commodities are invoiced in dollars. Accordingly, when the dollar goes “down” the price of primary commodities tend to go “up,” and vice versa.

The dollar is at a three-year low against other currencies and is approaching the record low which occurred in 2008, when oil prices were at historically high levels.

The dollar’s decline accelerated last week after a warning by Standard & Poor’s about the country’s $14.3 trillion debt and economic weakness compared to other countries.

So these factors all combine to drive oil prices up.

What is our government doing about it? Unfortunately, they’re reaching for the political playbook rather than seeking real solutions.

Among some of the many things the Obama regime is doing to limit our oil supply … Shell Cancels Arctic Oil Drilling Plans for 2011 … After having spent $4 billion so far to explore the tract. Why you ask, when they have a 27 billion barrel find about 50 miles from the Alaska pipeline terminus — Simple the ice breaker they planned to use emits CO2, and we can’t deny the global warming hoaxers at the EPA, now can we.

We Know Terrorist Are Transisting our Southern Border

April 29, 2011

Massad Ayoob: A Warning — Got militia?

“The general consensus of police, military, and national intelligence is that it’s only a matter of time before this nation experiences an incident reminiscent of Beslan or Mumbai: armed, trained, committed terrorists massacring the innocent with automatic weapons and explosives.”

Massad Ayoob is very likely the top of the list of Law Enforcement trainers in the USA.

Select Drudge Headlines

April 29, 2011

Syria explodes

Syrian security forces open fire on demonstrators...

Tens of thousands pour into streets on new ‘day of rage’…

4 soldiers killed…

Muslim Brotherhood orchestrates…

More signs of recovery spring 2011

More Dems threaten to vote against raising borrowing limit...

75,000 Applied for 2,000 Chicago McJobs…

1 million applied nationwide — for 62,000 McJobs! …

Doubt cast on recovery…

Oil near 31-month peak on weak dollar, unrest…

GALLUP: U.S. confidence plunges, only 27% say economy is growing…

Communist Party Predicts Huge May Day Rallies Across America – Left Exploits Immigrants

April 29, 2011

Communists exploit their useful idiots

From the blog New Zeal:

Communist Party USA labor journalist John Wojcik is predicting huge labor union/immigrant rallies across America on May 1.

The US left wants to legalize millions of illegal immigrants, because they know that the vast majority will vote Democrat. In these times of high unemployment,  resentment among many unionized and unionized workers and the unemployed against illegal immigrants is high.

Therefore the left is deliberately trying to bring all these groups into an alliance behind Barack Obama and the Democrats and against the G.O.P.

From today’s Peoples World

Hundreds of thousands across the nation marching and rallying this May Day will be fusing two of the great struggles of the day – the fight for workers’ rights and the fight for immigrant rights.

The labor movement, rejecting the notion that immigrants are taking jobs away from the native-born, has jumped with both feet into the fightfor immigrant rights.

This is funny, because the only rights illegal immigrants have, is to go back home.

Earlier this week Obama met in the with illegal immigrant celebrity activists to coordinate these Communist May Day rallies. Hey is this our illegal president meeting with illegal immigrant supporters?

Remember this from June 18, 2010:

Obama tells Senator Kyl in private Oval Office meeting: I won’t secure border because then Republicans will have no reason to support “comprehensive immigration reform.” Otherwise known as AMNESTY

Obama’s Birth Cetifcate: Recently Released Birth Certificate Provides Proof He Is Not A Natural Born Citizen

April 29, 2011

For Reference, the Constitution as written, and nowhere can I find any amendment related to the requirements to be President. All I find is this, from Article 2, Section 1:

The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. An obsolete part of this clause provides that instead of being a natural born citizen, a person may be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

The only operative part currently is … “must be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old”, the rest pertains to the original founding. The reason for this last clause was to extend eligibility to Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, regardless of their place of birth, who were born under the allegiance of a foreign sovereign before the founding of the United States. Without this clause, no one would have been eligible to be president until thirty-five years after the founding of the United States.

Looking at the phrase “natural born citizen” it means born to parents who are both US citizens at time of birth, and born in the USA.

I still can’t find anyone who will delineate how an American citizen mother and a Kenyan citizen father makes you a natural born citizen. Because this would mean any third world anchor baby could be president. Is this what we now have, the anchor baby president? So until someone can prove Obama’s father was a US citizen on Barack Huessien Obama’s birth day, then I guess we have a pure media concoction, brought on by the “hide the birth certificate” media scam.

Or is it the great msm racist con-game, to totally destroy the Constitution?

Because if you take this to the extreme, you get anybody in the world can be president, as long as they were born in the US, regardless parentage, and allegiance. I doubt this is what the founders meant by “natural born citizen” … i.e. born of two parents who were American citizens at time of birth, and born in the USA. This provides the case with no allegiance to America, which is what strangely we have with the current anti-American president.

Ann Coulter nails the birth certificate issue again, as she has every time I’ve heard her opine. The reason the issue had traction with otherwise sensible Americans is precisely because Obama’s loyalties seem so “foreign.” His agenda has always been global and he clearly rejects American exceptionalism.

Who wants to try, I am all ears.

Over at the legal blog “Natural Born Citizen” there is this:

They simply played a better game of chess. And due to this sick game, Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President. Obama’s defeat of the dual nationality issue, in both the courts and the media, means that the President’s parents do not have to be US citizens. If that is true, then the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless.

If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To become naturalized as a US citizen, one must at least swear an oath of allegiance to the US by renouncing all other allegiances. But a person such as Obama, who was born with dual allegiance is apparently not even required to renounce all previous allegiances under oath.

The BC was a conspiracy theory. The dual nationality issue is a legal question. Obama always controlled the issue of whether or not he would produce the BC. But the legal issue was never under his control. So he exercised as much control over it as possible by allowing the birth certificate to fester casting a huge shadow over his dual allegiance.

Your Recovery Spring Economic News For 2011

April 28, 2011

Sigh …

GDP: 1.8%...

inflation surges ... 3.8 percent rate


Dollar sell-off intensifies...

Roaring right along as the president focuses like a laser on jobs and the economy by taping the Oprah show and attending 3 fundraisers yesterday. Doesn’t this guy have a real job?

OBAMA: 'We do not have time for this kind of silliness'...


…then off to NYC for campaign cash

Lets not forget the dollar and the great Federal Reserve challenge

BERNANKE: Here comes the inflation...

CLAIM: ‘The Fed Will Make Sure Obama Wins in 2012’…

Dollar Drops to Lowest Since 2008…

Credit Drudge headlines.

Florida House Approves Two Gun Bills, On Marion Hammer’s Birthday

April 27, 2011

The legislation (CS/HB 155) bars health care professionals from including in a patient’s health record information about gun ownership, unless it is relevant to medical care or the safety of others. An earlier version of the bill would have made doctors subject to 5 years in prison or $5,000 fines if they asked about a patient’s gun ownership.

The measure was approved 88-30.

“Owning guns is a fundamental right,” said Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Palatka. “It’s not to be infringed upon by your doctor.” — The Supreme Court agrees, in the Heller Decision, which acknowledged the Second Amendment is a fundamental right.

During debate, several lawmakers paid homage to longtime Affiliated Sportsmen of Florida lobbyist Marion Hammer, seated in the House gallery and celebrating a birthday Tuesday. She described the timing as “coincidence.”

Moments later, the House voted 85-33 to OK another measure (CS/HB 45) prohibiting cities and counties from attempting to enact local gun laws tougher than state standards. State law already preempts such local measures, but several governments have attempted to impose restrictions, which typically lead to lawsuits.

The House legislation would make city or county officials subject to non-criminal penalties for violating the new standard. Fines could range from $5,000 to as much as $100,000, under the legislation.

Next up, the Senate.

Massachusetts: This Is A Shocker

April 27, 2011

Massachusetts state House passed a new law barring all PEUs from collective bargaining on health care, it passed by a veto-proof majority — because Democrats pushed the bill:

House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights. …

Under the legislation, mayors and other local officials would be given unfettered authority to set copayments and deductibles for their employees, after the 30-day discussion period with unions. Only the share of premiums paid by employees would remain on the health care bargaining table.

Yes, you read that right.  Democrats in Massachusetts admitted that Scott Walker had the right idea all along.  In fact, the Commonwealth believes that the ability to manage health care coverage will save taxpayers $100 million in the next budget year.

Not done yet, but who would have thought Democrats would do this? The public sector unions and their sector collective bargaining

Climate Tort Goes Down

April 26, 2011

Even liberal Justices can’t abide this theory.

How unconvincing is the green legal doctrine of the climate tort? So much so that not a single Justice seemed persuaded when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments last Tuesday—even some of the liberals questioned the theory with Scalia-like vigor.

In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, a group of state attorneys general are suing five utilities, claiming their carbon emissions are a “nuisance” under common law. Boiled down, they’re asking the Court to give judges the power to create climate policies—and weigh their costs and …


Apparently the Justices realize their original ruling giving “maybe power” to the EPA was a mistake.

%d bloggers like this: