Sunday, May 31, 2015

Socialism and not deodorant starves the poor

From the files of Jeff Jacoby at The Boston Globe

Will this deodorant aisle be history when Bernie Sanders is president?

What this country needs, says Bernie Sanders, is less deodorant.

The 73-year-old senator from Vermont, now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, told CNBC's John Harwood in an interview on Tuesday that because American consumers can choose from so many brands of personal-care products, kids are going to bed with empty bellies.

"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country," Sanders lamented. He didn't explain exactly how the profusion of toiletries and athletic footwear leads to childhood hunger, but for the only self-described socialist in Congress, it is no doubt a matter of faith that the abundance of capitalism must generate poverty and undernourishment.

In the real world, the opposite is true: Hunger and deprivation are rarest where markets and trade are freest. Food in America couldn't possibly be more plentiful; no one starves because too many economic resources are being channeled into marketing Old Spice instead of oatmeal. But in the socialist delusion, centralized control is always preferable to voluntary enterprise.

Better that government czars should decide what is produced, and impose their plan from above. After all, when buyers and sellers are left free to choose for themselves, grocery and department store aisles fill up with "too many" goods that consumers desire to buy. And that's not the worst of it: In the process of fulfilling those desires, some capitalists may be getting wealthy.

Sanders's suggestion that more kids would eat if only deodorant came in fewer varieties was roundly mocked. Wherever his collectivist ideology has been enforced, however, the consequences — shortages, rationing, bare shelves, long lines, grinding austerity — are anything but funny.

Unlike John F. Kennedy, who argued that a rising tide lifts all boats, socialist true believers care far less about growing the economy than about decreasing the gap between rich and poor. "If the changes that you envision ... were to result in a more equitable distribution of income but less economic growth," Sanders was asked in the CNBC interview, "is that trade-off worth making?" Yes, he said at once.

"The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn't matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages.... You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems."

How easy it is to pooh-pooh "growth for the sake of growth" when you're an American politician who makes a good salary and never has to worry about where his next meal will come from. But for the world's destitute — for those who struggle daily just to hold body and soul together — economic growth spells salvation.

Sanders has spent decades railing against the rich and bewailing the plight of the poor. Yet for lifting hungry and needy people out of poverty, no force on earth comes close to the growth fueled by free markets and trade.

On Wednesday, one day after Sanders kicked off his White House campaign, the United Nations reported that hunger still afflicts about 795 million people around the globe, or about one out of every nine human beings. As great a challenge as that is, it represents an amazing decrease in the number of undernourished people over the past 25 years.

Even though the world's population has grown by 1.9 billion since 1990, there are 216 million fewer men, women, and children threatened by hunger today than there were then. For the first time, we can realistically envision the end of starvation as a global scourge.

Thanks to advances in agricultural science — especially the famous "Green Revolution" for which the American biologist Norman Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize — it is possible to grow enough food to feed a world with 7 billion people. But it takes the dynamism and productivity of markets, and the prosperity ignited by trade, to make that food available and affordable to the great majority of the human family.

Perhaps Sanders doesn't grasp that, but the UN agency most concerned with feeding the hungry does.

Socialism empties food shelves. Free markets and trade fills them.
Above: A shopper in Venezuela finds little to choose from.

"Economic growth is necessary for alleviating poverty and reducing hunger and malnutrition," emphasizes the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in the new hunger report. "Countries that become richer are less susceptible to food insecurity."

Blasting greedy billionaires and sneering at the multiplicity of deodorant brands "when children are hungry" appeals to a slice of the electorate. But populist rhetoric from a "humorless aging hippie peacenik Socialist" (as Sanders was once described in a New York Times Magazine profile) doesn't fill empty food bowls. Market economies do.

"Markets that function well are important for promoting food security and nutrition," the UN report says. "Markets ... ensure food availability."

From China to Tanzania, from North Korea to the Soviet Union, socialism over the past century condemned countless children — and their parents — to hunger, malnutrition, and famine. Deodorant never hurt a soul.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Saturday, May 30, 2015

5th circuit court drenched the Obama fire

From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically

Get Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco

5th Circuit amnesty doused Obama’s over reach of power through executive order.


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Hillary's media ~ Bad as her southern accent

From the files of Jeff Crouere at Ringside Politics on WLAE-TV 32 in New Orleans, Louisiana

Visit Jeff Crouere at Ringside
The media should be having a field day with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. For her entire political life, Hillary Clinton’s name has been synonymous with scandal. From cattle futures to the Rose Law Firm to the White Travel Office, Hillary Clinton was never far from the scandals that plagued her husband's presidency.

Her tenure as Secretary of State did not include any significant accomplishments, but was marred by her inexcusable handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack. While serving as our nation’s top diplomat, she seemingly sold her office to the highest bidder as massive funds were raised by the Clinton Foundation.

Despite her supposed advocacy for gays and women, her foundation accepted large donations from Middle Eastern countries that discriminate against both groups and possess horrible human rights records. For Hillary Clinton, actions speak louder than words and her acceptance of tainted money shows how little she cares about human rights.

As a presidential candidate, Hillary has been rocked by revelations that she used a private email account and server to conduct official Obama administration business. Not only did she expose these communications to potential hacking from foreign adversaries, but Hillary shielded these emails from the American people.

It should surprise no one that Hillary destroyed 31,000 emails and wiped her server clean. Clearly, Hillary Clinton does not believe in transparency and, once again, her actions are the hallmark of someone who specializes in duplicity. Sadly, these behaviors were nothing new as Hillary has been obfuscating and telling falsehoods her entire political career.

In the past five weeks, Clinton has only answered press questions twice, in both cases, quite reluctantly. Such mistreatment of the media and the American people should not be tolerated; however, most reporters are giving her a pass because they share her liberal beliefs. Of course, no Republican presidential frontrunner would be allowed to avoid media scrutiny for over a month.

This week, Hillary continued to avoid the press while campaigning in South Carolina, a state she lost badly to Barack Obama in 2008. While addressing her supporters, Hillary once again utilized a phony Southern accent. This laughable attempt at a diction makeover brought up painful memories of her 2007 speech in Selma, Alabama where Hillary donned the phoniest Southern accent of all time.

Thus, in her South Carolina campaign swing, Hillary managed to insult her audience, the media and most importantly the American people. While Hillary avoided press questions, her Republican opponent, Carly Fiorina, conducted a wide ranging news conference outside the hotel where Clinton was speaking.

During her sidewalk interview, Fiorina showed the American people how a presidential candidate should behave by being open and honest and not backing down from tough questions.

The current edition of Hillary Clinton is a candidate who is neither genuine nor honest and is uninterested in answering questions about her questionable behavior. This is not the kind of person Americans need as President.

Obviously, Hillary learned about deceit from the master of political deception, Bill Clinton. As Paula Jones, a woman who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, noted in an interview this week with the Daily Mail Online, Americans should not elect Hillary Clinton as President of the United States.

According to Jones, “She should not be running with the terrible history they have. Who would want Bill Clinton back a second time, doing the same stuff he was doing before, philandering with women? They have both lied.”

Exactly Ms. Jones; Bill Clinton and his phony, scandal tarred wife should be not allowed anywhere near the White House. If she is elected President, America should expect more of the same, lies coupled with relentless ambition, a very dangerous combination.

Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Friday and 10:00 p.m. Sunday on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. For more information, visit his web site at E-mail him at

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Delusional and dangerous national strategy

From the files of Colonel Allen B. West

Visit Colonel West at His Online Website

“When I was commissioned as an Army officer in 1982, one of the books listed on our mandatory reading was Sun Tzu’s Art of War. I willed my original copy to a young subordinate officer years ago. However, I still maintain a copy in my office at the NCPA.” ~ Allen West

Allen West for Townhall:
One of the memorable quotes from that seminal strategic work is, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” It is that quote which is most applicable considering the most recent inane statement emanating from our Commander-in-Chief, President Barack Obama, at last week’s US Coast Guard Academy graduation.

At that event, which is the christening of young future leaders, they were told that if they denied climate change they were negligent and derelict of their duty. That, ladies and gents, is a rather harsh and hypocritical statement coming from someone who abandoned Americans to die in Benghazi, Libya and promulgated a false narrative to cover the negligent action.

It is an ironic perspective coming from someone who is negotiating with an enemy, Iran, who chants “death to America” while they are holding four Americans hostage – Robert Levinson, Jason Reznaian, Saeed Abedini, and Amir Hekmati.

What is most disconcerting is the stretch to align climate change as a cause for Islamic terrorism, at least one specific group. President Obama claimed that we need to, “Understand climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world. Yet, what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram.”
This is where Sun Tzu’s quote is applicable, as President Obama knows not the nature of the enemy.


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

A real climate threat to our national security

National security, the Seattle oil rig, hypocrisy, and Greenpeace’s dirty money from the files of Ron Arnold at The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise

President Obama had it all wrong in his recent commencement address at the United States Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. He warned that climate change “deniers” endanger our national security – insisting that denial “undermines the readiness of our forces.”

In fact, climate change true believers are the real threat to our national security. That includes the notorious Seattle mob of Greenpeace “kayaktivists” who were recently paddling around Puget Sound, in kayaks made from petroleum, trying to stop Shell Oil’s Polar Pioneer Arctic drilling rig from making a layover at the Port of Seattle to gear up for Alaskan waters.

When thwarted by the Coast Guard’s 500-foot no-approach cordon, the Greenpeace canoe crowd left the harbor and took to the streets, where they blocked supplier access to the rig until city police dispersed them.

These angry picketers are the threat. They undermine America’s share of the Arctic Ocean’s estimated 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13 percent of its oil reserves. That fuel could power the military as well as civilians.

How can slogan shouters endanger America’s national security when their targets are civilian oil rigs? Shell’s rigs will draw needed attention to the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in an ocean filling with Russia’s growing Arctic supremacy. This month, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told a Senate appropriations committee hearing that the U.S. military Arctic defense policy is falling short.

The United States lacks ships able to operate in or near Arctic ice. We have only two medium icebreakers, one of which is nearly a decade past pull date. Russia has 40 big icecap-crunchers, 25 of them nuclear-powered, including one battleship-size beast ominously named 50 Years of Victory (but it takes tourists to the North Pole for 15-day cruises at $30,000 and up).

Our entire Alaskan Arctic coast has no U.S. military base, not one. Russian jets make nearly monthly incursions to the Air Defense Identification Zones off the coast of Alaska. Interceptors have to fly to the north coast from Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks (500 miles) or all the way from Elemendorf AFB in Anchorage (725 miles).

President Putin strategically laid claim to great swaths of Arctic oil and gas with deployed rigs. He has activated the Northern Fleet – two-thirds of the entire Russian Navy – as a strategic military command. And he has assigned a 6,000-soldier Russian Arctic warfare unit to the archipelago of Novaya Zemlya, with next generation fighter aircraft in addition to advanced S400 Triumf anti-aircraft systems. An Arctic military reconnaissance drone base 420 miles off mainland Alaska is operational.

In February, President Obama seemed to have adopted the Greenpeace strategy of roll over and play dead, when he stripped Alaska of vast stores of its oil and gas wealth, by reducing offshore drilling and declaring most of the 19.6-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge off limits to oil production. Yet his administration approved a conditional permit for Shell’s Arctic oil exploration.

The United States “may be 40 years behind” Russia, Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski told Defense Secretary Carter. This spring, the U.S. Northern Command is supposed to release a report that is expected to militarize the existing 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region. However, according to the strategy, as reported by Foreign Policy Journal, “the Navy’s role will primarily be in support of search and rescue, law enforcement, and civil support operations.”

Shell’s oil rigs provide peaceful reasons for our warships and planes to patrol the Arctic in counterbalance to Russia. Carter told Murkowski, “The Arctic is going to be a major area of importance to the United States strategically and economically to the future.”

Research by Chicago-area Heartland Institute found a secret beneath Greenpeace’s anti-oil ruckus: it is funded by oil-drenched millions from investments in ExxonMobil, Chevron, PetroChina and dozens of other fossil fuel firms, ironically including shares of Royal Dutch Shell, owner of the rig docked in Seattle.

According to Foundation Search, the top Greenpeace donor is the leftist-run David and Lucile Packard Foundation, which paid them a total of $2,146,690 since 2000. The deceased electronics mogul’s foundation managers boast 2013 assets of $6.9 billion.

They have invested enormous working capital into Anadarko Petroleum, Apache Corporation, Arch Coal, Carrizo Oil and Gas, Chevron, ConocoPhilips, Devon Energy, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips66, Questar, Tesoro, Valero Energy, World Fuel Service (a defendant in lawsuits over the 2013 oil train explosion in Lac-M├ęgantic, Quebec that killed 47 people), and many others. They pay Greenpeace from the profits.

Second-ranked Greenpeace donor is the leftist-funding Arcus Foundation, which gave the Rainbow Warrior security threats $1,055,651 since 2007. Established by ultra-green billionaire Jon Stryker, Arcus’ 2013 assets totaled $169,472,585 – with working capital injected into China Petroleum, ExxonMobil, PetroChina, Royal Dutch Shell and TransCanada (the “tar” sands pipeline company). It also paid Greenpeace from its fossil fuel profits.

The list of foundations giving oil profits to Greenpeace goes on and on – and Greenpeace goes on and on hypocritically taking those oil profits to undermine America’s real energy future.

This cabal could redeem itself instantly: they could just stop using any fossil fuels right now.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Beating Stress (part two)

Beating Stress ~ Part Two from Mary Jane Popp at KAHI Radio in Sacramento, California

Available on Amazon
The last time on POPPOFF radio we spoke of how stress can really cause major problems in your life and mine. We all tend to ignore stress because it’s in our lives daily.

So we don’t feel like we have the time to deal with it. But even small amounts of stress can put your body on high alert and it is dealing with physical and emotional responses to perceived dangers which aren’t always real.

We covered Breathing, Smiling, Worrying, Maintaining blood sugar levels, Making Plans.

Now we’ll get to the last five to fight that pesky thing called stress.

Continued from Part One:

6) EXERCISE: True, just exercising won’t magically make your stress disappear, but it will definitely reduce some of the emotional intensity that you’re feeling; clear your thoughts and also enable you to manage your problems more calmly. Exercise naturally reduces levels of your body’s stress hormones (such as adrenaline and cortisol) and while it simultaneously stimulates the production of endorphins (which are your body’s natural painkillers and mood enhancers.)

7) VISUALIZE SOMETHING POSITIVE: When confronted with stressful situations or with anxious thoughts, take a moment to simply visualize yourself handling the situation with calm, ease, and clarity. True you must first try not to pay attention to your current frenzied mental state, but focus instead on the feelings of making it through with smooth-sailing through the storm with solutions and ideas coming to you effortlessly.

8) BE SILENT: Plan ahead for a small amount of time when you can completely disconnect. Begin this with increments of time that seem sustainable and doable for you, even if it’s just five minutes. That means no phone, no texting, no emails, no TV—nothing! Put the word out to others that they won’t be able to reach you so you can veg-out worry free.

9) POSITIVE SELF-TALK: This will require a bit of a shift in perspective for those who are more naturally pessimistic. Recognize that your problems are often a question of perspective. When you allow yourself the opportunity to change your angle, you may see your situation from a more positive point of view. With conscious and consistent effort you can actually train yourself to be more positive about life. Let’s start. You don’t have to create formal Affirmation, but try several times throughout your day (and especially during times of stress) some positive, self-affirming messages to self like, when you’re a bit anxious try “I always find a way, just breath and relax,” “It can be done” or All will be well.” Studies have shown that simply expressing gratitude will help reduce anxiety.

10) SMELL SOMETHING WONDERFUL AND RELAXING: The nose is a powerful tool. Sniff some calming essential oils—Vanilla, Orange, Basil, Anise, and Chamomile are great choices. Research shows that these scents can reduce tension in the body and help increase mental clarity.

Of course, this is just a smattering of all the information you will be in “The Biology of Beating Stress.” But it’ll give you a start.

Jeanne Ricks is a Holistic Health Coach and Clinical Hypnotist who provides personal diet, wellness, and nutrition coaching combined with Hypnosis to help achieve your personal BEST.

Check out and always remember, POPPOFF will always help you to be the Best You Can Be.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Friday, May 29, 2015

Global warming - High Alert

From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically

Get Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco

A global warming alert is taking priority over the global threat of ISIS. Of course Obama and the left desperately need the cause of Global Warming to advance their agenda and fill their coffers.


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Ferguson protesters paid $5000 for rioting

A PRonlineNews story reported at

Paid Protesters Expected to Get Paid $1,250 Per Week from 'MORE'

At least some of the protesters who looted, rioted, burned buildings and overturned police cars in Ferguson, Missouri, last year were promised payment of up to $5,000 per month to join the protests.

However, when the Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), the successor group to the now-bankrupt St. Louis branch of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), stiffed the protesters, they launched a sit-in protest at the headquarters of MORE and created a Twitter page to demand their money, the Washington Times reports.

Former U.S. Rep. Allen B. West noted on his website, "Instead of being thankful for getting off the unemployment line for a few weeks and having a little fun protesting, the paid rioters who tore up Ferguson, MO, are protesting again.

"First of all, can you even imagine getting paid $5,000.00 a month for running around holding a sign and burning down an occasional building? That's around $1,250.00 per week. Try making that at McDonald's or Starbucks."

The Kansas City Star estimates that the Ferguson riots, characterized as a spontaneous eruption of anger over the shooting of unarmed black criminal Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, cost the county $4.2 million.

Millennial Activists United (MAU) posted a letter on their website stating, "On May 14, 2015 many individuals and organizations of the protest movement that began in Ferguson, Missouri, organized a sit-in in the office of Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE). The demand was simple: Cut the checks. The protesters say they are unable to pay their bills after taking time to travel to Ferguson.

"Questions have been raised as to how the movement is to sustain when white non-profits are hoarding monies collected of off (sic) black bodies? When we will (sic) hold the industry of black suffering accountable? The people of the community are fed up and the accountability begins here and now," the letter continues.

"There is an insidious strand of racism and white supremacy that exists in this movement. This money is typically in the hands of white people who oversee the types of services that the non-profit provides, while having select token black people to spearhead the conversations within and to the community."

MORE is funded by liberal billionaire George Soros, the Times notes, through his Open Society Foundations (OSF).

The OSF, the Times states, paid for activists from various protest groups to travel to Ferguson and take part in the demonstrations.

Akiba Solomon of Colorlines stated, "More than 500 of us have traveled from Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Nashville, Portland, Tucson, Washington, D.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and other cities to support the people of Ferguson and help turn a local moment into a national movement," the Times noted.

"There's absolutely no doubt that part of the reason that Ferguson flared up was because protesters were being paid to be there. That makes you wonder how many are being paid in Baltimore? How many more will be paid in the future?" The Right Scoop asked.

Protesters directed much of their anger against MORE director Jeff Ordower, former Missouri head of ACORN and ACORN's Midwest operations, FrontPage Mag reports.

"The unpaid rent-a-mob operatives complain that MORE stiffed them the same way ACORN did to hired protesters throughout its 40 years of radical left-wing rabble-rousing," FrontPage Mag reports.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

U.S. judge thrashes Obama administration

A shared media report from the files of Colonel Allen B. West

Visit Colonel Allen B. West Online

A U.S. judge on Thursday blasted the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives over the implementation of the Democratic President’s signature healthcare law.

Reuters Reports:
Republicans in the House filed a lawsuit in November, saying administration officials unlawfully bypassed Congress.
At issue are executive changes authorizing Treasury payments to healthcare insurers without the funding being agreed by Congress and delaying implementation of the law’s employer mandate, which required employers with more than 50 employees to provide healthcare coverage.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, appointed by Obama’s predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, repeatedly interrupted U.S. Justice Department lawyer Joel McElvain during the hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Justice Department lawyers argue that the House lacks standing to sue, citing a section of U.S. law that means the House would have to prove it has been directly harmed.
“So it is your position that if the House of Representatives affirmatively voted not to fund something … then that vote can be ignored by the administration, because after all, no one can sue them?” she asked. 
There is more to the story here:


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

The Harper climate pledge is hot air

Canada has no way to ensure that developing nations will keep their commitments ~ from the files of Tom Harris

In announcing the Stephen Harper government’s new greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets earlier this month, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq said Canada will “work with our international partners to establish an international agreement in Paris that includes meaningful and transparent commitments from all major emitters.”

But Canadians are being tricked.

Any GHG emission reduction pledges made by developing countries in Paris later this year will almost certainly not be enforced.

Written in bureaucratese, the convoluted first sentence in last December’s “Lima Call for Climate Action,” the United Nations’ last major climate change agreement, indicated exactly that.

It reads: “The Conference of the Parties, Reiterating that the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) shall be under the Convention and guided by its principles...”

The ADP is the group of back room negotiators who are drafting the text for the big climate deal to be signed in Paris in December.

The “Convention” refers to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed by former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and hundreds of other world leaders at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992.

And the ADP’s work will adhere to the UNFCCC, including its critical Article 4:
“The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”
Translated, this means that, under any treaty based on the UNFCCC (which all UN climate agreements are), developing countries will keep their emission reduction commitments only if we in the developed world pay them enough and give them enough of our technology.

Also implied in the article is that, even if we give them everything we promise, developing countries may simply forget about their GHG targets if they interfere with their “first and overriding priorities” of “economic and social development and poverty eradication.”

Developed nations like Canada, on the other hand, do not have this option. We must keep our emission reduction commitments no matter how severely it impacts our economies.

It is not as if the UN has been hiding this “firewall” between developing and developed nations.

It has told us repeatedly in UN climate change agreements in Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban and Lima that, “development and poverty eradication,” not emission reduction, takes top billing for developing countries.

Actions to significantly reduce GHG emissions would entail dramatically cutting back on the use of coal, the source of 81% of China’s electricity and 71% of India’s.

As coal is by far the least expensive source of electric power in most of the world, reducing GHG emissions by restricting coal use would unquestionably interfere with development priorities.

So, developing countries simply won’t do it, citing the UNFCCC in support of their actions.

Some commentators have speculated that tougher requirements will be imposed by the UN on poor nations over time as they develop.

The only way this can happen is if there are substantial revisions to the UNFCCC treaty.

China, India and other developing countries have clearly indicated that they will not allow this to happen any time soon.

Chinese negotiator Su Wei summed up the stance of developing nations when he explained that the purpose of the Paris agreement is to “reinforce and enhance” the 1992 convention, not rewrite it.

Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in part because it lacked legally binding GHG targets for developing countries.

So why is the Harper government supporting a process that will result in our country being stuck in another Kyoto?

Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition, which challenges the hypothesis that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are known to cause climate problems.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

NATO makes case against Russian war

From the files of Gary Franchi at The Next News Network

We are one day closer to World War Three . The footage you are seeing right now was recorded at a NATO military exercise just yesterday as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg arrived in Washington.

One pressing matter on his agenda - RUSSIA.

Mincing no words today, when speaking to the Center for Strategic and International Studies he made known to the world that the “challenges are clear” and coming from a resurgent russia”:

“Heavy fighting could flare up at any moment” words from the secretary general of NATO as he commends member nations for seeking a “path to peace”

Unfortunately the “path to peace” always begins with “footsteps to war.”

What exactly are the challenges posed by a resurgent Russia?

Stoltenberg has planted his flag declaring Russia a threat to European security and independence and declared Russia’s military activities opaque and unpredictable.

It is astounding to watch world leaders hold an olive branch in one hand and a sword in the other… but there is nothing new under the sun

As the Secretary General was promoting his path to peace, soldiers under his command were showing their force for world diplomats during SARMIS 15.

NATO soldiers from the United States, Canada, Romania, and the United Kingdom assembled on the open battlefield in a coordinated life fire exercise.

Just as NATO calls Russian aggression “disturbing behavior,” how do you think NATO’s actions are perceived by Russia?

Each side is fiercely escalating their show of military power - while paying lip service to peace.

The Secretary General says… full heavy fighting could erupt at any moment.

Friends these events are happening RIGHT NOW. As you watch this report World War Three looms heavy on the horizon. Where is the corporate media? Reporting on world cup soccer corruption.

Help us do the job neglected by the corporate media and urgently share this report with humanity.

We must not let these mad men turn our families and the world to ashes.


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Clinton media tries to prop up Hillary

From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically

Get Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco

Clinton media bias is propping Hillary up for the 2016 campaign, stuffing many of the scandals swirling around her under the rug.


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Carly says Hillary is nothing but a title

From the files of Ian Hanchett at Breitbart News Video

Meet Candidate Carly Fiorina (R)
Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina argued that “titles are just titles” and Hillary Clinton’s “track record” includes the collapse of the Middle East and the failed Russian reset on Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” on MSNBC.

Fiorina said, “I come from a world where titles are just titles, and talk is just talk. It’s only in politics where titles and words mean a lot. In the rest of the world, it’s actually about what have you done, actions speak louder than words.

People want to know are your words and your actions consistent and are they consistent over time. And so, I think when 82% of the American people now believe that there is a professional political class more interested in preserving its own power and privilege than it is in serving the American people, people expect basic questions to be asked of anyone running for president.

‘What have you done, are you trustworthy, are you transparent, will you answer questions?'”

Fiorina said that while Hillary Clinton has said some “wonderful things” as Secretary of State.

  • “It’s also true that as Secretary of State she took women’s rights and human rights off the table for discussion with China.
  • It’s also true as Secretary of State that she called Bashar al-Assad a positive reformer.
  • It’s also true that in 2011, when she was Secretary of State, she said that Iraq was a free, stable, sovereign nation. And now we have a nation falling apart, Iranian influence growing, ISIS growing.
  • It’s true that she said that she could reset our Russia — our relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin is on the march.
  • So, I think all of those things I just named go fundamentally to what is her track record.”


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

The Hillary enigma

From the Warning Signs of Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

Know the Warning Signs
Does it strike anyone as strange that the only candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination to be the next President of the United States is the wife of a former President? There is no historic precedent for this, no way to measure this against how Americans have selected Presidents in the past.

Like most Americans, I first took notice of her when Bill began his campaign to become President. I recall being struck by the fact that in 1969 as a student at Wellesley College, her 92-page senior thesis was devoted to the community organizer, Saul Alinsky’s book. The title of the thesis was “There is Only the Fight…”: An Analysis of the Alinski Model.” She would request Wellesley to deny access to it.

Alinksy was a Communist. His twelve rules for radicals, unlike the Ten Commandments, are devoid of a moral message. Instead, the message is “this is how you can win.” Hillary would do well to review Rule 7, “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

She was already old news when she announced her candidacy and it is becoming older with every passing day as she fails to take questions from the media, participating in totally staged events to look like “one of the people.”

She and Bill are not one of the people. They, like the Bushes, are political royalty. They have both been around a very long time.

Hillary, however, despite the millions of words that have been written about and by her remains an enigma. Other than being farther to the Left than Bill, she is a woman whose “achievements” in life have largely been the result of having married Bill.

She would spend eight years in the White House as the First Lady and, pursuing her college dreams of political power, they would move to New York State where she ran and won a Senatorial election.

There isn’t a single Senate bill that she introduced or that is credited to her. She is said to have worked hard and gotten along well with her colleagues, but her Senate years are a blur in her public life. Then she made a bid to be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in 2008 and along came Barack Hussein Obama with whom the voters fell in love. When he was elected, he asked her to become his Secretary of State.

With the exception of the Benghazi tragedy on September 11, 2012, a clear failure of judgment and duty, and about which she lied, her years as Secretary of State reflect her years in the Senate; nothing of any significance resulted, no major treaties, no major anything, except for one more scandal.

So the question remains; who is Hillary Rodham Clinton? What are her fundamental principles beyond the acquisition of political power? And money. Lots of it while uttering nonsense such as she and Bill being “dead broke” when they left office?

What are we to make of her deletions of thousands of emails on her private server—something she was not supposed to use as Secretary of State—and her assertion that those we may never see were of no importance?

They’re important if, as is widely believed, foreign governments hacked her private email server and thus had access to information about policies affecting themselves and others. She may not have broken a law, but she surely did not obey Obama White House policy regarding the emails.

Alinski’s Rule 1 is “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from two main sources—money and people.”

We are told that Hillary has a huge amount of money with which to wage a campaign to become the first woman President. In light of the revelations about the Clinton Foundations, virtual slush funds, and the millions earned by her and Bill to give speeches, there is little doubt of that.

You cannot, however, buy trust and the polls indicate that is seeping away.

Her die-hard supporters probably know as little about her as the rest of us, but it is their trust she is depending on right now. Should she actually receive the Democratic Party’s nomination, the distrust of independent voters, disaffected Democrats, and of course Republicans, will play a crucial role in who is elected in 2016. It is not likely to be Hillary Clinton.

It is not likely because, as we have already seen, she seems to have reached a point where her political abilities have grown tired and out-of-date. These are not the 1990s. A whole generation has been born since Bill was President.

Like her, the Democratic Party seems tired as well. Can you believe there is not another Democrat, a Governor or Senator who could emerge to represent the Party? How devoid of any real leadership has the Democratic Party become if the only candidate they can offer is a former First Lady? That has been her primary claim to fame despite the two offices she has held since the 1990s.

I suggest that Hillary ceases to be an enigma if you just think of the Wellesley student who thought the best topic for her senior thesis was the book by a dedicated Communist, Saul Alinsky.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Paula Jones: Don't let him back in the whitehouse

An exclusive from Paul Thompson for the U.K. Daily Mail

'Don't let Bill back in the White House, he abused women and he'll do it again.'
  • Paula Jones warns against voting for Hillary - because she also lied about sex case which almost cost him presidency.
  • Paula Jones sued President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment, saying he propositioned her when he was Arkansas governor.
  • Her case led to investigation in which Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky, leading to his impeachment trial.
  • Now a stay-at-home mom in Little Rock she tells Daily Mail Online his conduct means he should be kept out of the White House.
Jones says he is still lying and would philander again - and that Hillary lied too so is also unworthy of office 'There is no way that she did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband.
" . . . I tried to distract Mr. Clinton by asking him about his wife and her activities, and I sat down at the end of the sofa nearest the door.

Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to 'kiss it'.

I was horrified by this. I jumped up from the couch and told Mr. Clinton that I had to go, saying something to the effect that I had to get back to the registration desk. Mr. Clinton, while fondling his penis, said: 'Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do . . . '
Read the entire story at the U.K. Daily Mail

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Lawsuits against Clintons allege racketeering

A shared news item from Colonel Allen B. West

Visit the Colonel Allen B. West Website
The lawsuit, filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, includes a legal request to have the Florida judge seize the private server on which Hillary Clinton and her aides hosted their emails while she served as secretary of state.

Klayman has filed dozens of lawsuits against the Clintons and other prominent politicians.

The racketeering, influenced and corrupt organizations, or RICO, case alleges the former first couple and their family philanthropy traded political favors for donations or generous speaking fees for Bill Clinton while his wife was the nation’s chief diplomat.

“Negotiations by email about influencing U.S. foreign policy or U.S. Government actions to benefit donors to … The Clinton Foundation or sponsors of speaking engagements would not be captured on a U.S. Government email account because her emails would not be with a U.S. Government official,” Klayman said in court documents obtained by the Washington Examiner.

There's more to the story ~ Click Here

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

California gas prices heading your way

From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically

Get Your Daily Dose of Humor from A.F. (Tony) Branco


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

New York to decide chimpanzee legal rights

Progressive Liberals gone loony from The U.K. Telegraph

New York’s Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether chimpanzees deserve to be given legal rights - specifically two chimps named Hercules and Leo being held in captivity by Stony Brook University in New York State for use in an anatomical research program.

For the sake of posterity, the case is “Nonhuman Rights Project v. Stanley, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 152736-2015”.

That’s a joke, right?

No. The Nonhuman Rights Project, a group founded by Steven Wise, an attorney and animal rights activist, is deadly serious. And the question of whether the most intelligent non-human animals should have a legal status beyond mere objects has generated significant legal debate in recent years.

But how can a chimp have rights if it can’t even speak?

Nor can some mentally ill people, or unborn children for that matter. But they still have legal rights.

So which “right” do they want chimps to be granted?

Specifically, the right to liberty – or “bodily freedom” ~ not to be stuck in a cage, or a science lab. So if the court decides in their favour do the chimps simply walk off into Manhattan?

No. But they do get to go to a sanctuary in Florida to live out their days in as much freedom as is practically possible.

This all sounds pretty radical. Where would it end?

That’s the argument of Christopher Coulston, the New York Assistant Attorney General who is defending the university in this case.

He has warned the court against a decision that would set a precedent “for the release of other animals ... housed at a zoo, in an educational institution, on a farm, or owned as a domesticated pet,” and leave New York mired in litigation forever more.

So they want to free the cows, pigs and chickens too?

No. The Nonhuman Rights Project says only animals who demonstrate “clear scientific evidence of complex cognitive abilities [such] as self-awareness and autonomy” should be granted rights. So pigs and ducks are out of luck. Dolphins, whales and elephants – who like chimps have been shown to communicate, remember, mourn their dead and play tricks on each other - would qualify.

And is there any legal, as opposed to scientific, basis for these claims for chimps’ rights?

Mr Wise, in arguing for the “personhood” of chimps is drawing on the 18th century case of Somerset v. Stewart (1772) in which James Somerset, a man who was captured and enslaved in Africa, was freed after anti-slavery campaigners filed a writ of habeas corpus against his illegal detention.

Somerset was a man, of course, not a chimp. But Mr Wise makes the point that it wasn’t that long ago that women, or enslaved Africans were not given “legal personhood” but were treated as mere chattels – property to be exploited, like land or livestock.

So does the case have any chance?

It seems doubtful. Previous cases filed by Mr Wise against the owners of chimps named Tommy and Kiko have been rejected by lower courts, although those decisions are being appealed.

But if nothing else, Lori Gruen, professor and chair of Philosophy at Wesleyan University , says the case will be thought-provoking – not just about legal issues, but about the nature of human relationships with all animals, not just higher species.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Obama amnesty blows up in courts

A shared news event from Colonel Allen B. West

Visit the Colonel Allen B. West Website

A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.

Read the full story here:

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Leaving the environmentalism church

From the Warning Signs of Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

Know the Warning Signs from Alan Caruba

In March 2009 while the Environmental Protection Agency was rushing to fulfill a presidential campaign pledge to document that carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other greenhouse gases endangered public health and the environment, a longtime employee, Alan Carlin, put out a 93-page report challenging the science being cited and the drift of the agency from its initial role to one captured by fanatical activists and alarmists, treating environmentalism more as a religion than based in science.

At the time Carlin was a 72-year-old analyst and economist who, as The New York Times put it, “had labored in obscurity in a little-known office at the Environmental Protection Agency since the Nixon administration.” His EPA career would span 38 years.

Available on Amazon
The website for his new book, “Environmentalism Gone Mad” says, “Dr. Alan Carlin is an economist and physical scientist with degrees from Caltech and MIT and publications in both economics and climate/energy, who became actively involved in the Sierra Club in the 1960s as an activist and Chapter Chairman. This led to a career as a manager and senior analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency.”

As he says in the preface “The purpose of this book is to explain why I changed from my lifelong support of the environmental movement to extreme skepticism concern their current primary objective of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.”

“Although I and the many other climate skeptics are now referred to as ‘deniers’ by the climate alarmists, that does not change the science—and there is no valid scientific basis for the alarmists’ catastrophic climate predictions—or justify their fantastically expensive and useless ‘solution.’”

Carlin went from being a dedicated environmentalist, based on its initial philosophy of conservation, to an observer of the movement that was taken over and distorted to advocate falsehoods about global warming and a transition from fossil-fuels to “clean energy” meaning wind, solar and bio-fuels. As an economist he understood how absurd it was to suggest rejecting fossil-fuels, the key element of modern industry and society.

“The climate alarmists,” says Carlin, “have now been making their apocalyptic predictions for almost thirty years and it is now possible to compare their predictions with actual physical observations.” Suffice to say all the predictions of a significantly higher temperature—the warming—have been wrong.

In fact, the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle since 1998 and shows no indication of warming

Predictions about the North and South Poles melting, a major rise in ocean levels, increased hurricanes and other climate events have been wrong along with countless other climate-related apocalyptic predictions.

Having observed how the EPA has functioned for more than three decades, Carlin warns that its current “environmental policy has been hijacked by radicals intent on imposing their ideology by government fiat on the rest of us whether we like it or not…If environmental policy is based on government fiat or ‘green’ policy prescriptions the results have been and are very likely to continue to be disastrous.”

At 625 pages, Carlin’s book takes the reader from his early days as a Sierra Club activist and chapter leader to being an EPA outcast, denounced for telling the truth about the false claims of global warming, climate change, and what is now being called extreme weather.

As an economist, Carlin is particularly upset that “the Obama Administration’s climate/energy policy is wasting very large sums on non-solutions to minor or non-problems.” The book has come along as President Obama has been flogging “climate change” as the greatest threat to the nation and the world.

“It has been long recognized that weather is chaotic," says Carlin. While we operate within the four seasons, the weather that occurs can only be predicted in the most general terms. Suggesting that humans actually have any effect on the weather is absurd.

That is why the predictions made by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and all the others based on computer models are, by definition, worthless. Computer models cannot predict anything about the vast chaotic global climate system. Even today, meteorologists are mystified by the actions of clouds which can form and disappear in minutes.

It’s useful to keep in mind that climate is measured in centuries, while the weather is reported as what is occurring today and forecast, at best, for no more than a week. Weather records are maintained for purposes of comparison and within the larger context of determining the Earth’s climate cycles. Like those in the past, the present cooling cycle is based on a comparable one of the Sun that is producing lower levels of radiation. You don’t need a Ph.D. in meteorology to understand this.

Carlin does not hesitate to excoriate the blather put forth by the alarmists; particularly their claims that the weather is affected in any significant fashion by human activity and development in particular. “There is simply no evidence thus far that the normal activities of man have or will result in catastrophic outcomes for either man or nature.”

The actions the alarmists call for do nothing to enhance and benefit our lives. They drive up the cost of energy and food. They ignore how dependent modern life is on the use of fossil fuels.

“Despite all the lavish funding by liberal foundations and the federal government on their global warming doctrine-inspired programs, the radical environmental movement has long since gone so far beyond rationality that it is counter-productive in achieving its own ends.”

So long as it remains heavily funded and backed by the federal government, we must, like Carlin, speak out against environmental extremism.

We must elect new people to govern in a more realistic, science-based fashion.

We must urge our current legislators to rein in the rogue Environmental Protection Agency.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now