WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

By Paul Harvey

Conveniently Forgotten Facts.

Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a fellow black panther named Alex Rackley needed to die. Rackley was suspected of disloyalty. Rackley was first tied to a chair. Once safely immobilized, his friends tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him.

When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther member, Warren Kimbro took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was later found floating in a river about 25 miles north of New Haven, Connecticut.

Perhaps at this point you're curious as to what happened to these Black Panthers?

In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the killers was still in jail.

The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard and became good friends with none other than Al Gore. He later became an assistant dean at an Eastern Connecticut State College.

Isn't that something!!!

As a '60s radical you can pump a bullet into someone's head and a few years later, in the same state, you can become an assistant college dean!

Only in America!!!

Erica Huggins was the woman who served the Panthers by boiling the water for Mr. Rackley's torture ... Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a California School Board.

How in the world do you think these killers got off so easily?

Maybe it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the defense of the Panthers.

These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale University with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers during their trial.

One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan Lee, as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He isn't a member of a California School Board. He is now head of the United States Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, appointed by none other than Bill Clinton.

O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? Is this other notable Panther defender now a school board member? Is this other Panther apologist now an assistant college dean? No, neither!

The other Panther defender was, like Lee, a radical law student at Yale University at the time. She is now known as The "smartest woman in the world." She is none other than the former Democratic Senator from the State of New York---- the former First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And now, as Paul Harvey said; "You know the rest of the story".

This deserves the widest possible press. Also remember it when she runs for President!

Al Gore's Greed and Hypocrisy

Fat Albert and Global Harming

The once handsome but now, grotesquely obese+ugly Al Gore has added yet another iconic ‘charm’’ to his charm bracelet of stupid actions. Actions that have been toxic to humans and harmful to the globe at large. He has sold his soul once again, this time – to Al Jazeera, that paragon publisher of truth, virtue & utter Islamic bullshit.

It seems that Fat Albert Bore (Gore) is currently rollicking in self-gratification at his most recent reincarnation. Who knows what he thinks he is doing this time or who he thinks he is?

He has just sold his share of a failing media mess to Al Jazeera, touting the total compatibility of both their philosophies. Now, isn’t that just too sweet for words?

No need to recount here, all the ways this non-entity has covered himself with a combination of nincompoop and rubber cement. Terribly smelly and quite sticky, I must say. But, for several decades, we’ve all been witness to the many public displays of his prowess as a Kabuki dancer, whose colorful flourishes are painfully symbolic evidence of his wide variety of psychological disorders.

While most of his antics were transparently stupid and likely to merely affect our health and sanity in a bad way, this ‘antic’ is overtly traitorous. It is diabolically calculated to open the door wide to a violently hostile, anti-American purveyor of Islamist-oriented disinformation. And in the process, to provide a national stage for more encroachment and more toxic pollution of our universal information sources. The obvious intent is to do real harm to our national security. Thanks a lot Al, old boy.

This time, ALGORE has crossed the line from being stupidly insipid to being an actual, treasonous tool for use by a sworn enemy of the United States of America. Even though he has sold his interest in this newly enhanced loud-speaker for evil, he says that he will sit on the Board of Al Jazeera. Might we presume that he is remaining available to add to his litany of prostitutions, while still retaining the honor and mantle of a former Vice President of the United States? How cute.

He must be held accountable and made to feel the consequences of his traitorous action. Whatever it takes.

MORT KUFF

More MORT’s meanderings HERE

Climategate and Fakegate

The promoters of the global warming hysteria never really recovered from Climategate, the release of e-mails and data which demonstrated that climate insiders were using questionable data, promoting misleading arguments, and conspiring to block dissenting views from the scientific literature. It was a fatal blow to the credibility of the warmists, and it has been followed by a steady stream of distinguished scientists standing up publicly to withdraw their backing from the global warming "consensus." The latest example is an op-ed by sixteen such scientists in the Wall Street Journal, followed up by a devastating response to their critics.

The global warming alarmists are losing the argument, and the latest scandal—James Delingpole calls it Fakegate—shows just how desperate they have become.

7th International Conference on Climate Change

What: Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7)

Theme: Real Science, Real Choices

Where: Hilton Chicago, 720 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL

When: Monday, May 21 – Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Real Science, Real Choices

This year's conference theme is "Real Science, Real Choices." The program features approxiamtely 60 scientists and policy experts speaking at plenary sessions and on three tracks of concurrent panel sessions exploring what real climate science is telling us about the causes and consquences of climate change, and the real consequences of choices being made based on the current perceptions of the state of climate science.

Major developments on the science front since the last ICCC took place last summer in Washington, DC include publication of a new report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) updating its 2009 report, Climate Change Reconsidered, and a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on extreme weather events and climate change.

The past year was marked by major retreats in the U.S. and other developing nations from government subsidies and investments in solar and wind power. The widely publicized bankruptcies of renewable energy firms such as Solar Trust of America and Solyndra, and slow economic growth and fiscal crises afflicting many European countries, have forced many policymakers around the world to reconsider the costs and consequences of basing energy choices on fear of man-made global warming.

Climategate and Fakegate

On November 22, 2001, a second batch of emails among scientists working at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit was released by an unknown whistle-blower. "Cimategate II" revealed prominent scientists concealing data, discussing global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry, and admitting to scientific uncertainties that they denied in their public statements.

Like an earlier release of emails on November 19, 2009, on the eve of the 2009 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Climategate II caused an uproar in the scientific community and a further drop in public belief in man-made global warming. But a series of friendly investigations of the Climategate affair, along with the timely expiration of the statute of limitations for the offense of failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, spared the scientists involved from any legal penalties.

On February 20, 2012, another global warming scandal broke, this one involving criminal behavior that is likely to be much more difficult to cover up. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, confessed to using fraud to obtain confidential corporate documents from The Heartland Institute and arranging for them to be posted online. The scandal became known as Fakegate because Gleick also circulated a fake memo he claimed outlined Heartland's "climate strategy."

In his confession, Gleick said "a rational public debate is desperately needed." We agree, which is why we have repeatedly invited scientists with wide-ranging views to speak at these conferences. Indeed, we invited Peter Gleick to speak at a Heartland event, an invitation he turned down on the very day he began his fraud.

ICCC History

Past conferences have taken place in New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and Sydney, Australia and have attracted nearly 3,000 participants from 20 countries. The proceedings have been covered by ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX News, the BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Le Monde, and most other leading media outlets.



Past ICCCs have featured presentations by members of Congress, the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, and scientists who view themselves as "skeptics" as well as "alarmists." Atmospheric scientist Scott Denning, who believes in man-made global warming, spoke at ICCC-4 in 2010 and ICCC-6 in 2011. Hear his remarks here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkL6TDIaCVw

Attendance Information

ICCC-7 is open to the public. Registration is required. More information is available at the conference Web site. For media credentials, register here or contact Tammy Nash at tnash@heartland.org or 312/377-4000. For more information about The Heartland Institute, visit our Web site or contact Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.

Get Twitter updates of the conference by following @HeartlandInst and the hashtag #ICCC7

Want America to Fail? Vote for Barry

If I Wanted America to Fail

Barry Soetoro is running up crushing federal debt at a level unprecedented in American history. The Muslim Miscreant (Hat Tip to MORT KUFF) has up trillions upon trillions in debt. Barry has endorsed and benefitted from systematic violation of election and campaign funding laws. His election saw widespread voter registration fraud from his bed buddies in his Group, ACORN and systematic acceptance of dubious campaign donations by disabling normal credit card verification procedures for online donations, allowing donations to be made from foreign donors and from donors using fictitious names.

Barrack Hussein Obama is trashing America’s Christian and Judeo-Christian culture. He is constantly treating Christianity as the moral equivalent of atheism and Islam in his public pronouncements — and by proclaiming that America is no longer a Christian nation. He and Hillary raise funds for the Muslim Brotherhood no matter how many American Troops are killed or Women raped by the Muslim radicals.

Global Warming Hoax Exposed by NASA

We see that Fifty of the top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter asking the agency to cease its global warming buffoonery. The global warming emperor has no clothes (if that is Al Gore, that is something we don't want to see). More and more people are finally fed up with this Global warming Hoax and are shouting loud and clear to stop these frauds. The Global warming fraudulent push is just a method to create extreme wealth for crooks, Franklin raines, Al Gore, Marxists, barry Soetoro and Many of the Left Wing Nazis.

Below is the entire letter, noting that the signers have a combined 1000 years of professional experience. Here it is:

March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack - JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
2. /s/ Larry Bell - JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman - JSC, Scientist - astronaut, 5 years
6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox - JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
8. /s/ Walter Cunningham - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
10. /s/ Leroy Day - Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. - JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich - JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron - JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
14. /s/ Charles Duke - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
15. /s/ Anita Gale
16. /s/ Grace Germany - JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
17. /s/ Ed Gibson - JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
18. /s/ Richard Gordon - JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin - JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs - JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
22. /s/ David W. Heath - JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. - JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
24. /s/ James R. Roundtree - JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
25. /s/ Enoch Jones - JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin - JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
27. /s/ Jack Knight - JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft - JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer - JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger - JSC, Ass't. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen - JSC, Project Engineer - Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser - Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller - Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
37. /s/ James Peacock - JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
38. /s/ Richard McFarland - JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers - JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum - JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt - JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows - JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
43. /s/ Kenneth Suit - JSC, Ass't Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson - JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer - Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine - JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried - JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
48. /s/ George Weisskopf - JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
49. /s/ Al Worden - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

The era of refusing to debate and insisting that "the science is settled" is over. Crooks such as Al Gore does not have the guts to debate Lord Monckton. That is because lard arse Al Gore knows it is all a scam that has made him rich. The weasels of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee have honored albore and will never revoke the prize it awarded him. Why not give a Nobel Peace prize to Rev. Wright's Protegee, barry Soetoro. Oh wait, they did.

RICK SANTORUM SCHOOLS INCOHERENT BOB SCHIEFFER

The Lamestream Media or Main Stream Media as they wish to be called when they take off their BROWN SHIRTS have spun more dribble on about Rick Santorum. Santorum points out facts about Barry Soetoro supporting and ideology that is based on lies. The ideology that Gore and Obama and the Brown Shirts try and shove down our throats is ludicrous. Many Senior Citizens are dying in Europe the past two years due to the cold weather. The Green Movement started by Commies is just a means to control the masses further while eliminating the Old and the Poor.

Inhumane Treatment of Elderly Patients on UK Healthcare INFO HERE


Below is a rush transcript of "Face the Nation" on February 19, 2012, hosted by CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. Guest is Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, did you hear what Rick Santorum said. He's the man of the hour in Republican politics and he's with us this morning. The latest leader in the Republican race at the top of the national polls and even in Michigan where Mitt Romney grew up. Yesterday, he was feeling his oats. In one twenty-four-hour-period he questioned the President's religious beliefs.


RICK SANTORUM (Republican Presidential Candidate/Former Pennsylvania Senator): It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology, oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but none-- no-- no less a theology.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Said prenatal testing is really just the President's way to reduce costs in taking care of the disabled.


RICK SANTORUM: Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And questioned the value of public schools.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea that the federal government should be running schools frankly much less that the state government should be running schools is anachronistic.


BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll ask him about all of it this morning, then check in with our round table of Norah O'Donnell and John Dickerson, plus Karen Tumulty of The Washington Post and Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press.


This is FACE THE NATION.


ANNOUNCER: From CBS News in Washington FACE THE NATION with Bob Schieffer.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And good morning. Welcome, Senator.


You are the leader in the polls this morning. And I have to say you were very busy yesterday. The Associated Press led its story of your appearance in Columbus, Ohio, by saying, quote, "Rick Santorum questioned Barack Obama's Christian values." That was after you lashed out at the President's proposal on energy of all things when you said this.


RICK SANTORUM (Republican Presidential Candidate/Former Pennsylvania Senator): It's not about you. It's not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs.


MAN: Right.


RICK SANTORUM: It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology.


(Crowd applauding)


BOB SCHIEFFER: So, Senator, I've got to ask you. What-- what in the world were you talking about, Sir?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, I was talking about the-- the radical environmentalists. That's why I was talking about energy, this-- this idea that-- that man is-- is not-- is here to serve the Earth as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. And I think that is a-- a-- is a phony ideal. I don't believe that that's what-- that's what we're here to do. That-- we-- that-- that man is here to-- to use the resources and use them wisely, to care for the Earth, to be a steward of the Earth. But we're not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective. And-- and I think a lot of radical-- a-- a-- a lot of radical environmentalists have it upside down.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, how does that translate into some sort of theology that the President's theology--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): Well, it's-- it's a world view.


BOB SCHIEFFER: --is not based on the Bible. I mean that suggests that he's not a Christian.


RICK SANTORUM: No, I wasn't suggesting that President's not a Christian. I accept the fact that the President is a Christian. I-- I just said that when you have a-- a-- a world view that-- that elevates the Earth above man and-- and-- and says that, you know, we can't take those resources because we're going to harm the Earth by-- by things that are-- that-- that frankly are just not scientifically proven, for example, that politicization of the whole global warming debate, I mean, this is just all-- all-- all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government. And-- and it's not questioning the President's beliefs in-- in Christianity. I'm talking about, you know, his-- the-- the belief that-- that man is-- should be in charge of the earth and should have--


BOB SCHIEFFER (voice overlapping): No, but once--


RICK SANTORUM: --dominion over it and should be good stewards of it.


BOB SCHIEFFER: I-- I don't want to just spend the whole program on this, but was your--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): Good.


BOB SCHIEFFER: --use of the word theology, perhaps, you could have had a better word than that? I mean, don't you know that-- that--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): It--


BOB SCHIEFFER: --or do you wonder that-- that might lead some people to suggest that you were questioning the President's faith?


RICK SANTORUM: Well-- no, because I've repeatedly said I don't question the President's faith. I've-- I've repeatedly said that I believe the President is a Christian. He says he is a Christian. But I'm talking about his world view or his-- the-- the way he approaches problems in this country and I think they're-- they're different than how most people do in America.


BOB SCHIEFFER: At another stop in Columbus, you took on the Pres-- President on prenatal care for expectant mothers. Here's what you said at this-- in this passage.


RICK SANTORUM: One of the things that you don't know about Obamacare and one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing in every insurance policy in America. Why? Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Senator, I-- I have to ask you to-- to give some explanation of that. You sound like you're saying that the purpose of prenatal care is to cause people to-- to have abortions, to get more abortions in this country. I think there are any number testing, I think any number of people would-- would say that's not the purpose at all.


RICK SANTORUM: Well, Bob, that's simply not true. The-- the bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in-- in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions and in fact, prenatal testing that-- that particularly amniocentesis. I'm not talking about general prenatal care. You said prenatal care. I-- I didn't say prenatal care shouldn't be covered. We're talking about specifically prenatal testing and specifically amniocentesis, which is a-- which is a procedure that actually creates a risk of having a miscarriage when you have it and is done for the purposes of identifying maladies of a child in the womb. In-- in which in many cases and in fact most cases a physicians recommend, particularly if there's a problem, recommend abortion. We know, Bob, that ninety percent of Down syndrome children in America are aborted. So to suggest where does that come from? I have a child who has trisomy 18. Almost a hundred percent of trisomy 18 children are encouraged to be aborted. So, I know what I'm talking about here.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I-- I know you know what you're talking about. I know that well. I know you also had another child that was stillborn. But--


RICK SANTORUM (overlapping): And I was--


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Didn't you want to know about that, just a minute.


(Cross talking)


BOB SCHIEFFER: Just hold on.


RICK SANTORUM: But what my-- my child was not stillborn. My child was born alive.


BOB SCHIEFFER: All right.


RICK SANTORUM: --and he lived two hours.


BOB SCHIEFFER: All right.


RICK SANTORUM: And by the way, prenatal testing was-- we had a-- we had a sonogram done there and they detected a problem. And, yes, the doctor said, you know, you-- you should consider an abortion. This is typical, Bob. This is what goes on and in-- in medical rooms around the country. And yes, prenatal testing, amniocentesis does, in fact, result more often than not in this country in abortions. That is-- that is a fact.


BOB SCHIEFFER: I stand corrected on the stillborn. You're absolutely right. I simply misspoke. But, Senator, do you not want any kind of prenatal testing? I mean would we just turn our back on science that this is something that expectant mothers should not go through, that it's best not to know about these things ahead of time? I mean is that what you're saying here?


RICK SANTORUM: No, I'm not saying. Look, people have the right to do it but to have the government force people to provide it free, just as to me, has a has is-- is a bit loaded. There are all sorts of prenatal testing which should be provided free. I have no problem with that if the-- if the insurance companies want to. I'm not for any of these things to be forced. Just let me-- just step back and say I don't believe any of these procedures, anything in insurance should be forced. So let me-- let me just start from there.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Okay.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea of having, for example, sonograms and other types of prenatal care, absolutely, if-- if I think that is-- that is a wise thing to do. And If I was an employer, I would certainly encourage that. But not all prenatal testing, amniocenteses basically are used for the purposes of identifying children who are disabled and in most cases end up as a result with abortions. It's the bottom line.


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): You're not saying. Let me just ask you, you're not saying that the cause of this, that the President looks down on disabled people, are you? You're not accusing him of that?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, the President supported partial birth abortion and partial birth abortion is a procedure used almost exclusively to-- to kill children late in pregnancy when they've been found out to be disabled. The President voted for a provision that-- that said that children born alive as a result of abortions late in pregnancy who were-- who were otherwise viable should be allowed to be killed by the doctor. I think the President has a very bad record on-- on-- on the issue of abortion and children who are disabled who are in the womb. And I think this simply is a continuation of that idea.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, since you brought all this up, I just wanted to make sure that everybody had a clear understanding of exactly what you meant--


RICK SANTORUM: Yeah.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And-- and how you feel about this. Another thing that raised a few eyebrows yesterday, Senator, you questioned the value of all things at the public school system. Now here's what you said about that.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly, much less that the state government should be running schools is anachronistic. It goes back to the time of industrialization of America when people came off the farms where they did home school or have the little neighborhood school and into these big factories. So we built equal factories called public schools.


BOB SCHIEFFER: So, there you are, Senator. I mean, are you saying that we shouldn't have public schools now? I mean I thought public schools were the foundation of American democracy.


RICK SANTORUM: Yeah, I think, I'm saying that-- that local communities and-- and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education, not the-- certainly not the federal government and to as I said before, as I said in that clip I think the state governments have not done a particularly good job in public education. I think public education should be a dynamic process that's locally run, that works with parents to provide the optimal opportunity for each child in America to get the education that they need, not what the federal government or the state government says that you should have. That's why I refer to it as, you know, going back to the industrialization of America when we had a-- we had a system in-- in this country with industrialization where, you know, you had one car produced. And, you know, you maybe got it in two colors. And-- and we haven't changed public education significantly since then. Every single car on a Detroit line is custom ordered. Why? Because it's designed to meet the needs of the customer. The education system, federally run, state run, is not designed to meet the-- meet the needs of the customer. It's designed for the purposes of the school not the children and the parents who are the customers of that system. And I think we need a dramatic change in that system.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, Senator, if everybody could afford to home school their children that would be one thing but--


RICK SANTORUM: I'm not talking about home schooling. I'm talking about public education, Bob.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, there are little communities where the people couldn't afford to have a public school. And that's why you have states involved in the schools. And there-- there--


RICK SANTORUM: Well, there's one thing the state-- there's one thing for states to-- to help fund public education. It's another thing to dictate and micromanage and-- and create a "one size fits all education" system in states and certainly in the federal government what President Obama is trying to do. What we need is to have the same kind of change and dynamic change in the public school system as we've seen in the economy of this country. Customized. Everybody gets what they need. I have seven children. I can tell you each one of them learn differently. All of them can excel in different settings. And that goes with every-- every American child. And we can do better than a system that one in three children drop out of school. If that is the hallmark, Bob, that you talk about as a-- as a great society, when one of three children drop out of school and a lot of the folks who don't drop out of school still can't read at grade level, that to me is a failure and defending that failure is not something I'm planning on doing which is what the President does.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, what-- what do you do to-- what would you do to fix it, Senator?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, as I said before, first I'd get the federal government out. I would, to the extent possible with res-- with respect to mandates and-- and designing curriculum and the like, I would get the state government out. I think that-- that the parents should be in charge working with the local school district to try to design an educational environment for each child that optimizes their potential. And whether it's in a public school or a private school or a Christian school or whatever kind of-- and whatever kind of setting that is best that the people at the local level can determine, I think that's where we need to go in education. It's got to be a much more dynamic process. We are failing American children. We're failing our society with having these high rates of dropouts and the people graduating without the skills or frankly without the value structure that's necessary to be able to go out and work hard and to be able to-- to produce in our society and to build strong communities. And I think we need some really dramatic changes. And we're not getting that.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Senator, I want to thank you very much for being with us this morning. I had hoped to ask you about some questions about the economy. But, frankly, you made so much news yesterday, out there on the campaign trail, I felt compelled to ask you about that. Thank you so much for being with us.


RICK SANTORUM: Well, I'm-- I'm happy to make news about-- about important issues of the day that obviously don't get talked about a lot.

Convenient Lies from Al Gore

Dear Editor of the Sin Sentinel,

Your front page headline article (Sun. Nov. 20), "The Signs of Global
Warming", touting the signs of man-made global warming, is totally
slanted toward the "environmental whacko" projection of fraudulent
man-made global warming.

A perfect example of this fraud can be illustrated by that global warming
guru, Al Gore, who proclaimed that due to the the melting of the polar
ice-caps, most all cities abutting the oceans, will be flooded out due
to the oceans reaching 20 ft. above the present sea levels.

So what does the pseudo-scientist, Al Gore do, he buys property along
the California coastline. Maybe he knows something we don't know or
that he won't tell us the truth?

That must be his "Inconvenient Truth" or is it a "Convenient Lie".
Let's have an article, in the future, by some reputable global warming
"deniers", of which there are thousands. The Sun-Sentinel always
tries to be fair and balanced, right?

Sincerely,

Chuck on the Right Side

MORT’s Meanderings

GLOBAL WORMING:

The science is unsettled but, the intent is clear.

Ever since the blasts of hot air first began to blow from that ill wind who blows no good, AL ‘Numbnutz’ GORE, the looney-tunes who bought into his nonsense have somehow, managed to become the tail that wags the dog.

For reasons of pure greed and personal aggrandizement, Gore and his army of loose-hinged followers have managed to throw every department of our Federal Government into a tizzy of stumbling over themselves trying to make every issue that should be red, white & blue – into a bilious shade of green. Meaning that no matter the issue, a pall of fault, guilt and blame has been cast over it in order to torture it into some form of green issue. That’s where the Global WORMing comes in. The ’green’ of course, translates into the great gobs of tax dollars the EPA is legally ‘worming’ (extorting) from the hapless citizenry of these United States, regardless of the ludicrous and illogical fake-science put forth by that agency in order to justify its case.

It stinks. Al Gore stinks. The EPA stinks. The Administration that is so complicit in this Federal hustle, stinks.It is a false, phony, illegitimate and corrupt issue. My scientific case for justification of this viewpoint? How about a few million years of history of this globe heating and cooling as it damned well pleased, without the benefit or Al Gore’s stupid, half-witted scientific opinion? And somehow, the human race is still roaming over the surface, bravely but breathlessly, waiting for the Arctic Ocean to flood Florida’s shoreline. Oy vay!

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF © 2011

America is broke but -----

Dear American Taxpayer,

For only the second time in my adult life, I am not ashamed of my country. I want to thank the hard working American people for paying $242 thousand dollars for my vacation in Spain .

My daughter Sasha, several long-time family friends, my personal staff and various guests had a wonderful time. Honestly, you just haven't lived until you have stayed in a $2,500.00 per night private 3-story villa at a 5-Star luxury hotel.

Thank you also for the use of Air Force Two and the 70 Secret Service personnel who tagged along to be sure we were safe and cared for at all times. By the way, if you happen to be visiting the Costa del Sol, I highly recommend the Buenaventura Plaza restaurant in Marbella ; great lobster with rice and oysters! I'm ashamed to admit the lobsters we ate in Martha's Vineyard were not quite as tasty, but what can you do if you're not in Europe , you have to just grin and bear it?

Air Force Two (which costs $11,351 per hour to operate according to Government Accounting Office reports) only used 47,500 gallons of jet fuel for this trip and carbon emissions were a mere 1,031 tons of CO2. These are only rough estimates, but they are close. That's quite a carbon footprint as my good friend Al Gore would say, so we must ask the American citizens to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars and drive less too, so we can lessen our combined carbon footprint.

I know times are hard and millions of you are struggling to put food on the table and trying to make ends meet. So I do appreciate your sacrifices and do hope you find work soon.

I was really exhausted after Barack took our family on a luxury vacation in Maine a few weeks ago. I just had to get away for a few days.

Cordially,

Michelle Obama

P.S. Thank you as well for the $2 BILLION dollar trip to India from which we just returned!

P.S.S. Thank you, too, for that vacation trip to Martha's Vineyard ; it was fabulous. And thanks for that second smaller jet that took our dog Bo to Martha's Vineyard so we and the children could have him with us while we were away from the White House for eleven days. After all, we couldn't take him on Air Force One because he might pee on some wires or something.

P.S.S.S. Oh, I almost forgot to say thanks also for our two-week trip to Hawaii at Christmas. That 7,000 square foot house was great!

LOVE YA!!!
Remember we all have to share the pain of these economic times equally!!!!!!!!

Not a Big Al Gore Fan

I read in The Tico Times that the author of “A Convenient Lie” (aka “An Inconvenient Truth”), Al Gore, is coming to Costa Rica to propagandize his fallacious theory of “global warming” (Tico Times, Feb. 18).

Since he began his campaign to scare the world about manmade global warming, he has become a multi-, multi-millionaire by conning many countries into believing that his theories are based on scientific fact.

Most reputable climatologists have said that man is not responsible for any kind of climate change or global warming (by the way, Gore has no scientific background at all).

The consensus is that most changes, if there are any, are a direct result of sunspots, something that man cannot control it in any way whatsoever.

For someone to spend $300 for a ticket to this propaganda event is an exercise in futility and simply a donation to an already rich man.

Look for zero valid information coming from this conference of obfuscation and deceit.

As P.T. Barnum would say, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Chuck On The Right Side

Tale of Two Houses

House #1
A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern 'snow belt' area. It's in the South.




House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every 'green' feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

======================================

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; It is the home of CON Artist, I mean the 'Environmentalist' Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence of the Ex-President of the United States, George W. Bush. A President with CLASS not like our current knuckle-head.

THIS is the definition of an "inconvenient truth"!

I sure hope this gets passed to everyone!

Hat Tip to B, #sgp !!!

Global Warming Lies!

We have more news on the Global Warming Fraud. Mostly blowhards like Barry Soetoro and so-called Scientists who took a few to many hits form their pipes, spew their lies. These Liberals think that they are so powerful that everything they do can affect the World. Then you just have the dirty, low down people like Al Gore who use Global Warming lies to fill his pockets with Millions of Dollars. I have to say again, that Barry Soetoro was spewing these Global Warming lies during his campaign. These Liberal DEMs should be wearing Orange jumpsuits!


'Academic embarrassment': Prof. Jon Krosnick Exposed for 'faulty' climate polls

Written by Marc Morano, Climate Depot

Stanford University's Jon Krosnick ( Krosnick@Stanford.edu - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) has either been distorting climate polling to suit his ideological position for years or he is an utterly incompetent pollster. The solid bet is on the former.

Professor Krosnick's polling results are so woeful that both Pew Research Center Survey and Gallup polling recently took the time to harshly reprimand him for his shoddy work.

See: Warming propagandist Prof. Krosnick exposed: Pew research 'says that Krosnick's survey is marred by faulty methodology. ...used words that encourged a positive response'

Polling propaganda Prof. Krosnick slapped down by Gallup Polling! Recent polling 'shows demonstrable drops in Americans' acknowledgment of and concern about global warming')

Krosnick has been skewing polling results on global warming for years and has been getting caught every time.

See: Flashback 2008: Krosnick's long history of climate propaganda: 'Krosnick invents a consensus position: climate change is occurring. But this is a meaningless assertion, devoid of any scientific value the public can expect psychologists to be engaged in brainwashing them into accepting political propaganda' -- 'Krosnick conducted a poll amongst the public, to see if their beliefs match those of the scientists, but neglected to poll scientists to establish their views'

The latest Krosnick academic embarrassment started with his June 8, 2010 oped in the New York Times. (See: Huh? Stanford U. Prof. Krosnick: 'Huge majorities of Americans still believe earth has been gradually warming as result of humans & want gov't regs to stop it')

Krosnick's apparent eagerness to skew, propagandize and present intellectually dishonest and shallow polling analysis, simply stuns anyone with even a rudimentary familiarity with recent global warming polls.

The Financial Post's Lawrence Solomon reveals some of Krosnick's tactics in a June 21, 2010 article. According to the Financial Post, Krosnick did not release his full report for public scrutiny nor did he show the public the context for his questions.

The Financial Post reports that Krosnick lumped the phrase “global warming” in with “the environment.” Here is the question Krosnick asked: “What do you think will be the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?” According to the paper, when put this way, 25% of the public responded with “Global warming/the environment.” But Krosnick doesn't tell us how many of that 25% choose global warming versus the myriad of other environmental issues.

What is most shocking about this point is that for two years running, all major polling has consistently revealed that not only is global warming/climate change the issue of least concern, but it is the lowest concern among all ENVIRONMENTAL issues!

Cap & Tax will Destroy America! Stop Marxism!

Another great article below. This one was in the New York Post? I guess some more people are waking up to the fact that Obama and his Marxist Cap and Tax will further destroy America.


Bam's climate Rx: All pain, no gain
By PATRICK J. MICHAELS

The cap-and-trade bill that the House passed last summer aims to force Americans to reduce those dreaded carbon emissions by 83 percent in less than four decades -- to the same per-capita level as 1867. Yet, even under the Al Gore-approved climate-science models, the bill would do nothing to stop global warming.

The bill is 1,000-plus pages of rules, regulations, handouts, subsidies and whatever else House leaders deemed necessary. Not one of the 435 members read the whole monstrosity -- because the leadership dropped 300 new pages on their desks the night before they voted.

Yet the central point is clear enough: The bill simply drives up the price of fossil-fuel based energy so high that the nation will have to somehow get along with only 17 percent of the gasoline and fossil-fuel-powered electricity that it uses today.

Don't ask how much it will cost. No one really knows, since you can't put a price on something that has yet to be defined.

Last Tuesday, President Obama cited the BP blowout as reason for the Senate to pass its version of the House bill. But senators know that expensive emission reductions are profoundly unpopular. Congress members found this out last summer when protests erupted nationwide within 24 hours of the bill's passage. Polls also suggest that a vote for the warming bill (especially on top of a vote for the health-care bill) is not a good way to keep a job in Congress this November.

And, again, the bills (neither the House-like Kerry-Lieberman tome, nor the climate-change lite by Indiana's Sen. Richard Lugar) would do nothing measurable about climate change.

The median guess from the United Nations is that, if we do nothing to change our ways, the average world surface temperature will rise about 5 degrees Fahrenheit this century. (In fact, the trends in recent decades strongly suggest that this is an overestimate -- but let's accept it for the sake of the argument.)

Now, if only the United States does change its ways, by adopting something like the House bill, we'd prevent about two-tenths of a degree of that warming, according to the UN's climate calculator. That is, the temperature in 2100 gets reduced to what it would otherwise be in 2096. All pain, no gain.

Even if every nation that has "obligations" under the UN's Kyoto Protocol on global warming also adopts and enforces it, it would cut warming a mere 7 percent below the "business as usual" level, an amount probably too small to measure with confidence.

Why would such drastic action on the part of America, Europe and Japan do so little to change the world? Because the older industrial nations are fast becoming bit players when it comes to global CO2 emissions. America's been pretty stagnant in the last decade -- while China's have been staggering.

In eight years, China's annual totals will be equal to what they emit now plus everything we emit. So if we stopped emitting completely, China completely counters our effort.

Add to that a simple fact which no cap-and-trade bill admits: That legislation would push even more of our industry into migrating to China, India and other nations that have no intention of reducing emissions by making energy more expensive.

Bottom line: This legislation won't lower global temperatures -- but merely make life more expensive. It'll force you to buy things you don't want, like much more expensive cars, and to use energy sources you'd normally bypass, like ethanol, solar and windmills. All have to be massively subsidized -- with your tax dollars -- to compete with today's mix of coal, gasoline and natural gas.

Patrick J. Michaels is Cato Institute senior fellow and a distinguished senior fellow at the School of Public Policy, George Mason University.