Gore: Global warming skeptics are this generation’s racists

Gore: Global warming skeptics are this generation’s racists

By Caroline  May – The Daily Caller   11:18 AM  08/28/2011

One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as  racists, at least so says former Vice President Al Gore.

In an interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project  collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcasted on UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for  climate change alarmists to succeed, they must “win the conversation” against  those who deny there is a crisis. (RELATED:  Bill McKibben: Global warming to blame for Hurricane Irene)

“I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil  Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an  impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the  hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is  that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to  discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when  they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really  started.”

The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing  racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same  manner.

“Secondly, back to this phrase ‘win the conversation,’” he continued. “There  came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs  with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this  personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the  course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there  came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean  that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just  don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the  conversation was won.”

“We have to win the conversation on climate,” Gore added.

When Bogusky questioned the analogy, asking if the scientific reasoning  behind climate change skeptics might throw a wrench into the good and evil  comparison with racism, Gore did not back down.

“I think it’s the same where the moral component is concerned and where the  facts are concerned I think it is important to get that out there, absolutely,” Gore said.

Gore also took shots at Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has lambasted climate change alarmists on the presidential  campaign trail, and other politicians who dare to question the veracity of  global warming science.

“This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific  community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the  lie that they are making up the science in order to make money,” Gore said.

Ironically, back during Perry’s days as a Democrat, the Texas governor  supported Gore in his 1988 presidential bid. Perry became a Republican in  1989.

Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/gore-global-warming-skeptics-are-this-generations-racists/#ixzz1WLh1NTL7

Advertisements

Democrats Worry New Laws Threaten their Illiterate, Illegal, Dead Voting Base

Democrats Worry New Laws Threaten their Illiterate, Illegal, Dead
Voting Base

June 2nd, 2011

Danny Tyree, FloydReports.com

According to Newsmax, Republican-controlled state legislatures nationwide are
stiffening voting laws with changes that include requiring valid photo
identification, restricting early voting and imposing stricter rules on those
who can register to vote.

Republicans assert that the changes are to ensure voters are qualified.
Democrats counter that the changes are politically motivated and aimed at
discouraging young and minority voters – many of whom comprise the party’s
base.

Reading between the lines, the Democratic argument boils down to “Many of the
people with whom our message resonates most strongly are too lazy, uninformed, or
muddle-headed to get out and vote
. NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH
THAT.”

Yes, the Democrats have learned to steal the thunder of the GOP’s patented
patriotism angle. (“Our military personnel bled and died that we might have our
freedoms. And now the heartless Republicans expect our citizens to get off their
couches and vote in a narrow one-week window…Uh, maybe I’d better just stop
talking.”)

The Democrats insist that the Republicans are….

Read
more
.

A Fool With a Badge is Still a Fool

A Fool With a Badge is Still a Fool

January 12th,
2011

Michael Reagan, FloydReports.com

When a would-be assassin shot my Dad, President Ronald Reagan,
nobody questioned the fact that the shooter was certifiably
nuts.
Authorities recognized that fact and put him in a mental institution as his
obvious disturbed mental state demanded.
Now we have another attempted killing of a public official, Arizona’s widely
admired Rep. Gabby Giffords, and just about everybody recognizes the fact that
the shooter, one Jared Loughner, is
crazy as a loon
.
Moreover, the fact that Loughner is probably nutty as a fruitcake, and
perhaps dangerously so, could not have escaped the attention of local law
enforcement authorities such as Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who already
had Loughner in his sights yet failed to do anything to prevent Loughner’s
foreseeable killing spree.
Yet we don’t hear a word of repentance for his failure to foresee what
transpired in Tucson last Saturday. Not a word, mainly because Sheriff Dupnik is
too busy
attacking Rush Limbaugh
and other
conservatives
to turn his rhetoric loose on the shooter.
In Dupnik’s twisted logic, Loughner may be a murderer but somehow or other
it’s all Rush’s fault for his unforgivable habit of calling a spade a spade and
referring to liberals as being mentally disjointed, as the majority of them
are.
This kind of ridiculous response to a tragedy is becoming what the French
would call de riguer — the liberal’s order of the day when one of their
failures to recognize reality results in people getting killed.
As my more plainspoken friends would put it, Dupnik shoulda seen it coming,
and he’s now trying to obfuscate that fact by striking out at people who had not
a single thing to do with Loughner’s deadly actions.
Read
more
.

The top five liberal hate groups

The top five liberal hate groups


.

While the Left loves to accuse the Tea Party and Conservatives to be members of hate groups, the simple fact is, there are a lot of liberal hate groups.  We could not let 2010 go into the books without presenting our top five liberal hate groups.

5.              NAACP.   The number five group has to be the NAACP.  Earlier this year, the NAACP released a report called Tea Party Nationalism.  The report, which was hilariously inaccurate, tried to claim the Tea Party was a racist group.  The NAACP, and its members have repeatedly made claims such as calling the Tea Party the 21st Century version of the KKK.  Shelia Jackson Lee, who is the NAACP resident hate monger, stated at the NAACP convention, “all of those who wore sheets a long time ago have taken them off and wear Tea Party clothing.”  The NAACP has never repudiated her attacks or any of their other silly attacks.    To the NAACP, anyone to the right of Karl Marx is a racist.   The NAACP is the number five liberal hate group.

4.            SEIU.   Andrew Stern, the former President of the Service Employees International Union famously said, “We prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that does not work, we will use the persuasion of power.”  SEIU is a group that has not been shy in using violence against companies who refused their efforts to unionize and have not been shy about using violence against Tea Party members.   In August 2009, SEIU thugs beat St. Louis Tea Party Member Kenneth Gladney.   In March 2010, a major Tea Party event occurred in Searchlight Nevada.  SEIU thugs came in and tried to cause violence against Americans exercising their First Amendment rights.   The SEIU is Number 4 on our liberal hate group list.

3.            ACLU.  The ACLU can be called a hate group with a law license.  A lot of law licenses.  If you hate America, the ACLU loves you and if you love America, the ACLU hates you.  They have sued to eliminate any reference to the Christian religion by schools or the government.  They have no problem with Islamists.  They have provided representation to terrorists at GITMO.  Their litigation strategy has been to reveal as many American secrets as possible.   ACLU chapters across the country have sent out letters to school boards this holiday season telling them what they can and cannot do in regard to school Christmas celebrations (who elected the ACLU?).   And of course the ACLU is famous for its litigation.  It has either sued and been awarded attorney’s fees or extorted settlements from small cities, counties and school boards afraid of being bankrupted by their obscene fees.  The ACLU is the number three liberal hate group.

2.            The Department of Homeland Security.  DHS has become something of a joke.  A bad joke.  DHS will not enforce border security.  It makes Americans go through a joke of a security system when they want to fly.   It invades their privacy while not going after terrorists.   And then of course, there is the infamous report where DHS ignored pressing issues like illegal immigration and Islamic terror to put out a report warning about terror from “right wing extremists.”  The DHS Clown in Chief, Janet Napolitano borrowed a page from the Clinton administration to try and demonize conservatives with this idiotic report.  The report was of course denounced by all concerned, but has never been repudiated.  As late as September of this year, Tea Party activists were added to the Homeland Security list of terror threats.  All of this is silly political posturing from the most corrupt regime in the history of this country.  And for that, the Department of Homeland Security is our number two liberal hate group.

1.            SPLC.   Of course, we could not complete this list without the Southern Poverty Law Center.  This group has made a cottage industry labeling any group to the right of Karl Marx a hate group.  Since the start of the Tea Party movement almost two years ago, the SPLC, or as it is more accurately called, the Church of Morris Dees.    Morris Dees is the founder of the SPLC.  He has made a name for himself for calling out Klansmen and skinheads, but then turns around and lumps anyone who disagrees with his far left agenda in the same groupings at the Klan or neo-Nazis.   Earlier this year, the SPLC released a report claiming “right wing extremists” were on the rise.  Their definition of right wing extremists was anyone who was concerned about the economy, out of control spending, illegal immigration or the insane rise of liberal nut groups as someone akin to the Branch Dividians.    More recently, the SPLC smeared as hate groups, respectable groups such as the Family Research Center, American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel and others as hate groups for opposing repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Homosexual Marriage.   That makes the SPLC our number one liberal hate group.

INSANE! Reid: ‘But for Me, We’d be in World-Wide Depression.’

Senator Harry Reid boldly states that he is the savior of the world economy.   He is clearly frustrated that voters are not more appreciative of what’s he’s done for them.

Where would the world be without Harry Reid?
That’s The Question the World Needs To Ask, That’s right folks, according to Harry Reid, he alone saved us all from a world wide depression.
What Cave As He Been Living In? Is H. Reid totally Senile?
Please watch the interview and you decide.

 

http://www.breitbart.tv/reid-but-for-me-wed-be-in-world-wide-depression/

Primary Lessons

Posted By Jacob Laksin On June 10, 2010 @ 1:00 am In FrontPage | 2 Comments

As President Obama’s poll ratings tumble and the Democratic majority in Congress continues to post record disapproval numbers, some on the Left have consoled themselves with the thought that the growing grassroots hostility to incumbent candidates transcends party and ideology. In this exegesis, liberal and progressive discontents are just as wound up – and just as influential – as their conservative Tea Party counterparts. If this week’s primary election results proved anything, it’s that this reading of the nation’s political map won’t wash. While the Tea Parties continued to notch victories in pivotal primary races, the Left’s insurgents were rebuffed.

The most prominent example came from Arkansas, where embattled Senator Blanche Lincoln staved off a bruising challenge from her union-backed rival, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. Lincoln drew Big Labor’s wrath for heresies like opposing “card check [1]” legislation, which would have eliminated secret ballots to facilitate union organizing. As payback, unions, aided by a battery of progressive political action groups, put their full political clout into the race, sponsoring Halter to the tune of $10 million. But while the lavishly funded challenge did force Lincoln into a runoff, the unions’ purchasing power came up short. As one agonized Obama White House official told Politico: “Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members’ money down the toilet on a pointless exercise.” Lincoln remains deeply vulnerable. Polls show she trails her Republican opponent John Boozman by some 25 points. But her defeat, if it comes, will be punishment for being too loyal to the Left’s agenda (Lincoln cast the decisive 60th vote to pass ObamaCare) rather than for straying too far from it.

Lest one dismiss Arkansas as a one-off from conservative country, liberal bastions proved no more receptive to left-wing insurgents. In California’s 36th district, far-Left candidate Marcy Winograd lost her second successive bid to oust Democratic centrist Jane Harman. Winograd, who styles herself as a “peace” activist, ran a campaign that sounded the full range of the angry Left’s talking points: Harman was variously portrayed as a corporate shill, a warmonger, and a traitor to the Left. An outspoken foe of Israel, Winograd even tried to capitalize on Harman’s pro-Israel record in the context of the recent clash between Israeli commandos and armed Turkish activists attempting to run Israel’s naval blockade. Winograd boasted [2] that as a sign of “solidarity” with the activists, her campaign had sent a Winograd for Congress T-Shirt that had been “worn on the flotilla.” As primary day neared, progressive blogs began trumpeting [3] Winograd as the new Joe Sestak – a true progressive who would oust the incumbent impostor. The hype proved just that, as Harman won by a comfortable 18-point [4] margin.

While primary challenges from the Left sputtered, Tea Party-backed conservatives scored several successes. Most prominently, Sharron Angle [5], until recently a relative unknown, rode the Tea Party movement’s support to victory in a crowded field for Nevada’s Republican nomination for the Senate. Although Tea Party spending to support Angle’s candidacy was limited compared to Big Labor’s efforts in Arkansas – the Tea Party political action committee spent just $550,000 to boost her name recognition – it was far more effective: From a 5 percent approval rating as recently as April, Angle went on to win the nomination. Tea Party-backed candidates also won [6] in Georgia, Maine and South Carolina.

It was not all glory for the Tea Party. In California and New Jersey, Tea Party favorites failed to break through. (A too-close-to-call race [7] between Tea Party candidate Anna Little and establishment rival Diana Gooch in New Jersey’s 6th Congressional district was one notable exception.) Even in defeat, though, there was encouraging news for the movement, as Tea Party candidates ran strongly in almost all races in which they were involved. At the very least, their generally strong showing indicated that despite their now-stale slogans of “change,” the Left is not nearly as energized, and not nearly the same force in primary races, as the surging conservative opposition.

Still, those determined to rain on the Tea Party’s parade ask a pertinent question: Can the movement replicate its strong success in primaries in general election races, where it must court a more ideologically diverse electorate? Democratic strategists and the mainstream media have professed glee over the prospect of Democratic incumbents facing candidates like Sharron Angle, whom they deem too far out of the mainstream. One Democratic strategist suggested [8] that Harry Reid would be “dancing in the streets” were Angle to win the GOP nomination. The Washington Post even did Reid the unsolicited favor of producing a list of allegedly damning quotes [9] that Reid could use to paint Angle as an extremist. But if early poll results are any guide, the Angle-Reid matchup won’t be the cakewalk that Democrats suppose. Indeed, a recent Mason-Dixon poll has Angle beating Reid by 44 percent to 41 percent. The Tea Party, it seems, is just getting started.

Obama’s invisible Islam–Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is

EDITORIAL: Obama’s invisible Islam

Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

During questioning before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, a visibly nervous Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. tried valiantly not to utter the expression “radical Islam.” The twisting began when Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, asked whether the men behind three recent terrorist incidents – the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the Time Square bombing attempt – “might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam.”

Mr. Holder said there are a “variety of reasons” why people commit terror attacks. That can be true, but in these cases there was one reason: radical Islam. The attorney general said you have to look at each case individually. That’s fine, but when that is done, one comes face to face with radical Islam every time. He said that of the variety of reasons people might commit terror, “some of them are potentially religious.” Yes, like radical Islam. When pressed, what Mr. Holder would finally allow is, “I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like [Times Square bomber Faisal] Shahzad.”

Mr. Holder mentioned Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born radical cleric now holed up in Yemen who has been mentioned in connection with all three attacks. Mr. Holder said that Mr. al-Awlaki “has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of [the faith].” Mr. Holder did not go into details to back up his assertion that Mr. al-Awlaki, an Islamic scholar, is somehow at odds with his own faith, nor did he pinpoint exactly what Muslim teachings he was referring to.

The Obama administration seems to have issued an internal gag order that forbids any official statements that might cast even the most extreme interpretations of the Islamic religion in a negative light. The “force protection review” of the Fort Hood massacre omitted any mention of shooter Nidal Malik Hasan’s openly radical Islamic worldview or the fact that he made the jihadist war cry “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire. Initially, the Obama administration refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, much less radical Islamic terrorism.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Domestic Extremist Lexicon, which was pulled out of circulation in the wake of controversy with other department publications, listed Jewish extremism and various forms of Christian extremism as threats but made no mention of any form of Muslim extremism. The Feb. 1, 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review discusses terrorism and violent extremism but does not mention radical Islam as a motivator, or in any context. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review likewise avoids any terminology related to Islam.

The Obama administration may not like to think of being at war with radical Islam, but the jihadists are definitely at war with the United States. Rather than running from the expression “radical Islam,” the administration should be openly discussing the ideological motives of the terrorists and finding ways to delegitimize them. Instead of hedging, obfuscating and ignoring, these Democrats should confront the challenge frankly, openly and honestly. Pretending that a radical, violent strain of Islam does not exist will not make it go away. To the contrary, it will make the situation much worse.

President Obama’s continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous. The United States will not defeat an enemy it is afraid to identify.