Truth Serum Today

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

From the stalls of Montezuma

Truth Serum Today: Be a Partner in our Free Speech Zone - Click
All You Wanted to Know About the Truth Serum Blog - Click

North Carolina has a reputation for going the furthest in the pursuit of a lost cause. The Gettysburg battlefield features a monument carefully placed at the “high watermark of the Confederacy” where the 26th North Carolina came to within ten paces of the Union position in The Angle before being driven back.

That Civil War conflict took place on 11,500 acres of Pennsylvania farmland. North Carolina’s latest battle is being fought stall–to–stall in public bathrooms around the state.

Hostilities commenced when the governor signed a bill requiring people using public restrooms to patronize the facility that corresponds to the plumbing noted on their birth certificate. From the reaction of the Gaystapo one would have thought the new law required a public declaration followed by a TSA–style body cavity inspection.

Realistically passage of the law would not affect the bathroom destination of most of the population. Cross–dressers and transvestites are no doubt already sneaking into women’s bathrooms. What the law meant is the state would not give its official blessing to switch–sitting and if a switch–sitter was caught in the act, so to speak, there would be consequences.

The law allowed business and individuals to set their own bathroom regulations, up to and including playing fruit basket turnover.

For a few days it was the usual Christians versus the licentious affair until PayPal entered the fray. The Internet payment company made a big production out of cancelling a 400–employee planned facility in Charlotte.

CEO Dan Schulman began his moral preening by declaring, “Becoming an employer in North Korea, (whoops, typo, should be Carolina) where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable.

The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal's mission and culture." He added his decision, “reflects PayPal's deepest values and our strong belief that every person has the right to be treated equally, and with dignity and respect.”

This is the same domestic cheap PC–PR point–scoring that had Apple fighting the FBI over a phone used by a terrorist.

Normally I would insert an analogy here to point out Schulman’s cheap moralizing, but it’s so difficult to find any real convictions in an executive like this — other than a commitment to making money and a vague, extremely flexible secularism — that constructing relevant analogies is extremely difficult.

For example, PayPal has no trouble doing business in Saudi Arabia where the penalty for homosexual behavior, to say nothing of switch–sitting, is significantly more stringent than in that hotbed of hate North Carolina.

But I’m going to try. Let’s say Schulman gets a call from the front desk that informs him there’s a nice man named Nevada Starshine who has decided his persona is a mistake and he really identifies as Dan Schulman. And oh, yes, he wants to use the toilet in the real Schulman’s office.

That puts the bathroom on the other foot. Based on Schulman’s statement he can’t say it’s a case of mistaken identity, because that fails to treat Starshine’s delusion with “dignity and respect.” Sure the lobby Schulman is mentally ill, but so is someone who says the DNA factory made a mistake and they are a man trapped in a woman’s body.

Schulman is one of those cultural Marxists who have no problem imposing burdens on law–abiding citizens at the expense of their rights (see: Common Sense gun laws). It’s fine to demand North Carolina allow men to use the ladies, but hot–swapping his own seat is a toilet too far.

And where does Schulman draw the line?

National Review found a Norwegian woman who claims she’s a cat trapped in a woman’s body. Will the state be forced to supply litter boxes for tabbies like her? Or should the Arizona woman interviewed by the Telegraph who says she’s really a dragon be allowed to demand a horde of gold to sit upon?

These unfortunate “trans” types are mentally disturbed people who need treatment instead of the indulgence preferred by Schulman and other business “leaders.” The latest is the porn site XHamster that according to The Huffington Post has banned North Carolina porn aficionados.

Using somewhat fuzzy logic the site says, “Judging by the stats of what you North Carolinians watch, we feel this punishment is a severe one. Back in March, we had 400,000 hits for ‘Transsexual’ [and] ‘Gay’ 319,907 times.” So it appears XHamster is punishing what people claim are the “victims” of the law.

That sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face, which is a surgery where even the “trans” community draws the line.

________________________________________

From the Stalls of Montezuma: A New Front in Culture War by Michael Shannon

Michael R. Shannon is a commentator, researcher (for the League of American Voters), and an award-winning political and advertising consultant with nationwide and international experience.

He is author of "Conservative Christian’s Guidebook for Living in Secular Times (Now with added humor and available on Amazon.com)."

Click here to read the Shannon report at the Whole Shebang (mostly)

_________________________________________

We are compelled to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at] truthserumeditor@gmail.com

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

He's leading from behind again

Truth Serum Today: Be a Partner in our Free Speech Zone - Click
All You Wanted to Know About the Truth Serum Blog - Click

Grab that Morning Coffee, Click Here and Check Out Branco Online

Okay, I’m hyperventilating. Tony combines beautiful drawings with biting politically incorrect wit and laugh out loud humor.” – Larry Elder – TV and Radio personality at at Fox News and KRLM AM 870

Lighten things up! Political discussions and debates don’t always have to be deep and long-winded arguments with points and counter points. Sometimes we just need to take a step back from it all and have a good laugh. With so many discouraging things happening in our country lately, that’s the only thing we can do to keep from crying.

Conservative artist Antonio Branco is a master at encapsulating deep and complex issues in a simple comic.

He has written his first book in a series and takes on a wide array of issues, from food stamps to global warming to foreign policy, Antonio isn’t afraid to say what he thinks.

Presented in a coffee table book style, this is the perfect conversation starter with friends and family that pick it up and start glancing through it’s pages.

Who knows, that liberal aunt of yours just might come over to the right side because of this book!

This 80 pages, hardcover comic measures 8″ x 10".

OR ORDER HERE – also autographed editions available

Read more from A.F. (Tony) Branco at this link.

_________________________________________

A Mississippi moment from the FLOTUS

Truth Serum Today: Be a Partner in our Free Speech Zone - Click
All You Wanted to Know About the Truth Serum Blog - Click

Last year, the first lady, Michelle Obama, gave a commencement speech at Alabama’s Tuskegee University that sounded more like she was paying homage to black activist W.E.B. DuBois than the school’s founder Booker T. Washington who, as an ex-slave, believed character and hard work were key to improving the plight of the black man.

Then again, Michelle is part of the illiterate gang who ousted evil slave owner Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill without researching the philosophies escaped slave Harriet Tubman stood for. Wait until Obama, who misquoted MLK on his Oval Office rug, realizes Underground Railroad conductor Tubman was a devout Christian whose pistol-packing ways mirror Sarah Palin, not Maxine Waters.

Nonetheless, Michelle recently returned from a trip with the guy who lectures continents on gay rights and who, after wishing Queen Elizabeth happy 90th birthday, threatened Britain by warning that voting “Yes” on a referendum to bow out of the EU would place the UK at the ‘end of the TTIP trade deal queue.’ Sorry, but that sounds more like Chicago-style coercion than a friendly suggestion to an ally.

Either way, Mrs. Obama is not unlike her Saul Alinsky-trained husband. The FLOTUS also ‘sees the world not as it is but as it should be’ and feels it’s her duty to set the non-compliant straight.

That’s why, after returning from making enemies overseas, Michelle quickly donned her tam and gown and headed to give a confrontational commencement speech in a state still stigmatized by a dark image concerning civil rights. It was at historically black Jackson State University that Michelle chose to include in her remarks a rebuke to Mississippi for daring to uphold the First Amendment.

As part of the discourse, the FLOTUS used voting rights as the vehicle to refer disparagingly to the “religious freedom bill” recently signed into law by governor Phil Bryant. The basis of the bill is to protect those who, because of a religious opposition to things like same-sex marriage, extramarital sex, or transgenderism, refuse to provide services to whose behavior falls outside what they believe to be Scriptural precepts.

Governor Bryant maintains that the “religious freedom bill” was passed "to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions... from discriminatory action by state government." Bryant said the new law "merely reinforces" existing religious freedom rights on the state level, "does not limit any constitutionally protected rights or actions," and does not challenge federal law.

The bottom line is that Americans are still free to live any way they choose. With that in mind, religious freedom should mean that no one is strong-armed to accept or accommodate conduct that runs contrary to a person’s deeply held faith.

Much like her husband, Michelle Obama disagrees.

It’s good to know that, in the name of nondiscrimination, dear FLOTUS can always be counted on to verbally discriminate against anyone who desires to remain true to constitutional or religious convictions.

That’s why; by comparing the God-given civil rights of black Americans to gender identity confusion and illegal immigration Mrs. Obama pretty much exploited Jackson State University graduates. Michelle got all preachy saying, "We see it right here in Mississippi -- just two weeks ago -– how swiftly progress can hurtle backward. How easy it is to single out a small group and marginalize them because of who they are or who they love."

It’s obvious from that statement the FLOTUS believes that if ‘who you are and what you believe’ make you hesitant to share a restroom with a transgender; you are worthy to be discriminated against. Otherwise, according to Michelle, ‘singling out and marginalizing’ is unacceptable.

And so, rather than commend her audience’s achievements, or inspire black graduates to forthcoming success, the FLOTUS turned a graduation into an opportunity to publicly reprimand a Republican governor and to stir animosity by insinuating that Mississippi is reverting back to civil rights abuses.

Mrs. Obama pressed on:

So we've got to stand side by side with all our neighbors –- straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender; Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu immigrant, Native American -- because the march for civil rights isn't just about African-Americans, it's about all Americans. It's about making things more just, more equal, more free for all our kids and grandkids.

The FLOTUS must have gotten confused because, while secretly viewing Christians as the one’s doing the oppressing, she mistakenly included Jesus-following, gun, and Bible-clingers in her “march for civil rights” appeal.

More importantly, since when is a force against one’s will to benefit another’s will the definition for the upholding of civil rights? And if that is how things now work in Obama’s fundamentally transformed America, shouldn’t Halal butchers be mandated, despite religion, to sell legal pork products to customers who demand bacon?

Besides, if ‘justice, equality and freedom’ are the goals, how does one carp about laws being passed that seek to ensure the right to “freedom of religion?” Moreover, in what way does the president saying, while in the UK, that a law “should be overturned” that preserves religious liberty make America “more just, more equal” and freer?

In the end, Michelle’s anti-freedom/ averse-to-equality rant are just more drivel issuing forth from a woman who, together with her subversive spouse, profess love for America and adherence to the Christian faith, but exhibit neither.

Instead, in an effort to destabilize the Constitution, disparage Biblical values, and chop away at conventional social mores, every year, Michelle “turns up like a bad penny” at historically black commencement ceremonies where she attempts to stir up racial divisiveness and gain political points by playing the victim card.

At the end of the day, Mrs. Obama can be counted upon to defend against intolerance by speaking prejudicially against the foundational principles held dear by great historical figures such as the Christian freedom fighter about to be memorialized on the front of the $20 bill.

_________________________________________

From the files of Jeannie DeAngelis at the American Thinker

Jeannie also hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com
_________________________________________

We are compelled to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at] truthserumeditor@gmail.com

Minimum Wage - Maximum Stupidity

Truth Serum Today: Be a Partner in our Free Speech Zone - Click
All You Wanted to Know About the Truth Serum Blog - Click

California is the latest state to dive headfirst into the shallow waters of raising the minimum wage. Predictably they are about to suffer, not a broken neck, but instead further injury to their already lackluster economy. Governor Jerry Brown recently announced a deal to raise the state minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022.

This follows the efforts of other cities to raise their minimum wage last year, specifically Seattle and San Francisco. How did that work out? For large businesses that could pass on the wage increase to customers, no big deal. For smaller businesses such as bookstores or restaurants, not so well. Small businesses in competitive markets are unable to raise prices enough to cover their higher labor expense and instead reduce workers’ hours or simply reduce workers.

Los Angeles-based American Apparel, employing 4,000 workers, responding to the wage increase, “Said it might outsource the making of some garments to another manufacturer in the U.S., and wipe out about 500 local jobs.”

Another LA clothing manufacturer, Joompy, selling its goods to large retailers such as Forever 21, faces a similar predicament. An item formerly costing $5 to produce now costs $6.50, and the big retailers are buying elsewhere to keep their own costs down. As a result, “Joompy may have to start importing goods instead of producing them locally.”

Liberal bastion of higher learning, tolerance, and diversity, the University of California, Berkeley fired 500 employees a week after Governor Jerry Brown signed the new minimum wage bill into law. Coincidence or economics?

Should this be any surprise? Not to anyone with a basic knowledge of economics. One of the first things taught in Economics 101 is the demand curve. Raise the price of something and demand for that something goes down. And vice versa. Put your house on the market for a higher price than it’s worth and see if any buyers are interested. Conversely, set the asking price for less than it’s worth and you will have a bidding war.

Labor is no different. A wage is the price of labor. Raise the wage and fewer employers will want to pay that wage, instead employing fewer workers or giving them less hours. Great for the worker receiving the new higher wage and maintaining their hours. Not so good for the employee laid off or now working part time. Or those replaced with self-serve kiosks, another option to reduce labor costs.

It’s election season and raising the minimum wage is a campaign issue for candidates. Socialist Bernie Sanders wants “a national $15 per hour minimum wage.” Socialist wannabe Hillary Clinton also wants a $15 federal minimum wage, but with stipulations, phasing it in gradually and perhaps not at all in low cost of living areas.

Their hypocrisy is rich. Bernie pays his interns only $12 per hour. Hillary is worse, paying nothing to interns for her campaign or the Clinton Foundation.

Why only $15 per hour as the minimum wage? Why not $20 or $25 per hour? Is $15 really a “living wage”? This translates to roughly $30,000 per year, not even above the 138% Federal Poverty Level which would qualify a family of four for Medicaid. Has anyone asked proponents of a higher minimum wage why only $15 and not $50 an hour?

Who actually earns the minimum wage? Is it the breadwinner for the above family of four? Or a middle-class teenager working his first job while living at home? The Pew Research Center answered the question. Half of minimum wagers are age 16 to 24 and a quarter are age 16-19. Two-thirds are part-time workers. 55% work in leisure and hospitality and 14% work in retail, where tips and commissions supplement wages.

The minimum wagers are typically not the family breadwinner. Those under age 25 live in households with an average family income of $65,900. For those over age 25, the majority live above the poverty line, most work part time, and only 5% are married. Rather than being breadwinners, the typical minimum wage earner is a suburban teenager, not a single parent.

The minimum wage is popular among limousine liberals who fancy themselves as champions of the poor and downtrodden. Unfortunately raising the minimum wage has little effect on poverty or standard of living. Instead it often has the opposite effect of reducing employment and job opportunities, particularly among entry-level workers in low-skilled jobs. In other words, among those who need it the most.

Interestingly the New York Times had this issue right. “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00” they say. “The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable -- and fundamentally flawed.” The only problem was they wrote this in 1987. But hey, even a broken clock is right once a day.

________________________________________

This is a feature from Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver-based retina surgeon, radio personality and writer at the American Thinker. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
_________________________________________

We are compelled to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at] truthserumeditor@gmail.com

Is Cruz another face in the crowd?

Truth Serum Today: Be a Partner in our Free Speech Zone - Click
All You Wanted to Know About the Truth Serum Blog - Click

Meet Senator Ted Cruz - Presidential Candidate

When Trump's unorthodox style of campaigning for president first took the political world by storm, I thought his ability to connect with the public is a real-life version of the movie, “A Face in the Crowd”

In the 1957 film, Andy Griffith played “Lonesome” Rhodes, a drifter discovered by a producer of a small-market radio program. Rhodes' confident down-to-earth, every-man style of speaking ultimately won him great fame and influence on national television, beloved by millions.

I'll be honest with you folks. When Trump broke the mold with his bold straight-talk politically incorrect campaigning, I loved it. The arrogance of the mainstream media has frosted me for years. So Trump getting into the MSM's face had me cheering him on. I was also hopeful that, as president, Trump would fulfill all the broken promises of the deceitful, traitorous GOP establishment.

As we move into the final months of the GOP nominating process, art is imitating real-life. Trump's behavior is similar to “Lonesome” Rhodes in the movie. Rhodes was not the person his millions of loyal fans thought him to be. At the end of a broadcast, the same producer who discovered Rhodes turned Rhodes' microphone back on, unknown to him. Rhodes made shocking hurtful comments about his audience, heard by and devastating millions.

Recent liberal positions on issues have exposed that Trump is not who he has presented himself to be. It has been reported that in a private meeting with GOP establishment leaders, Trump's “chief lieutenants” said Trump has been “projecting an image.” They said, “the part that he's been playing is evolving” to make him more palatable to general election voters.

Trump talking about raising taxes on the rich and saying it is okay for men to use girl's restrooms confirm the leftward “evolving” his campaign spoke of.

Speaking of taxes, Trump's tax returns reveals that he donated funds to homosexual activists including a group whose motto is “championing LGBT issues in K-12 education.”

My Conservative Campaign Committee team and I attended a rip-roaring Ted Cruz rally in Pittsburgh yesterday. Our efforts for Cruz have included attending rallies in 10 states thus far. I detected a new level of desperation and hope. Clearly, steel town (Pittsburgh) voters are ready for real change; confident that Cruz will not betray them in the White House.

Cruz received numerous enthusiastic standing ovations for his rock-solid conservative position on several issues; defending religious liberty, abolishing the IRS, repealing Obamacare and no amnesty.

Americans are fed up. Cruz is the only candidate who truly understands and shares the urgency we feel. Cruz promises to do everything in his power to fight the Washington DC cartel, restoring our lost jobs, freedom and national security.

Folks, this man is for real. He “ain't” another face in the crowd. This is why we at Conservative Campaign Committee travel the country to ensure that Ted Cruz is our next president of the United States.

__________________________________________

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman: The Conservative Campaign Committee

The UK Guardian declared prolific writer, singer and songwriter Lloyd Marcus the Tea Party Movement's most prominent African American, seen on Fox News, CNN and more.

Rejecting hyphenating, Marcus is renowned for proclaiming, "I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus AMERICAN."

Marcus is Chairman of Conservative Campaign Committee PAC.
_________________________________________

We are compelled to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at] truthserumeditor@gmail.com

Steve Malzberg on Cruz/Kasich Alliance

Truth Serum Today: Be a Partner in our Free Speech Zone - Click
All You Wanted to Know About the Truth Serum Blog - Click

Click Here For the Malzberg Show Powered by Newsmax

The Steve Malzberg Show, hosted by talk show veteran Steve Malzberg, analyzes the latest news and media spin with leading news-makers

Catch the Steve Malzberg report on Monday-Friday 7:00pm EDT - Direct TV #349 - Dish #223 - Verizon #115

_________________________________________

Monday, April 25, 2016

Patients should pay the piper

Truth Serum Today: Be a Partner in our Free Speech Zone - Click
All You Wanted to Know About the Truth Serum Blog - Click

She went to the doctor, the one at the downtown hospital she's been going to for years, for her annual physical in January.

She showed her insurance card when she checked in, and confirmed that the details hadn't changed. The doctor gave her a clean bill of health, renewed her prescriptions, and updated her medical record. It was a routine visit, and she gave it little further thought.

Until a bill arrived this week.

She was puzzled. The amount due wasn't exorbitant, but she shouldn't have been billed at all: Under her family's health insurance policy, a yearly physical is deemed preventive care and not subject to a copay. She examined the statement more closely, and saw that it was treating her January check-up as two events.

One was identified as "Preventive Care" and carried a charge of $465, which was covered by the insurance payment of $319.31 and the hospital "adjustment" of $145.69. A second item, vaguely labeled "Office Visit," was listed as a $397 charge. Of that amount, the insurer paid $113.55, and the hospital adjustment knocked off a further $248.45. That left a $35 balance for her to pay.

She called the doctor's medical practice and spoke with the Billing Department. "You probably discussed something with your physician that was outside the scope of an ordinary physical," the clerk surmised. "So when your visit was entered into the system, it was coded for an office consultation as well as a check-up."

She thought that was ridiculous — what was the point of an annual exam, if not to speak freely with the doctor about anything? At all events, she had no recollection of discussing an "outside-the-scope" topic, and said so to the billing clerk. So her account has been sent back for a "coding review." She'll have to wait 30 to 45 days for an answer.

Against the backdrop of $3 trillion in annual health-care spending in the United States, one woman's frustration with a medical bill may seem insignificant. But who doesn't encounter such frustrations? On any given day, millions of Americans are tearing their hair to make sense of billing snafus and insurance deductibles, prescription co-pays and out-of-network surcharges, baffling reimbursement rules and aggravating Medicare procedures, coding mysteries and paperwork blizzards.

They face a myriad of complexities and convolutions that have nothing to do with buying health care . . . but everything to do with expecting someone else to pay for it.

Americans are forever being told that health-care costs are out of control, and that only sweeping government intervention can bring them back to earth. Obamacare was supposed to make medical plans more affordable, but premiums are higher than ever and the government-run exchanges are reeling.

Bernie Sanders campaigns on a platform of "Medicare for all" —single-payer socialized health care — yet any such system would inevitably lower the quality of care while raising prices still higher.

Any health-care "reform" that intensifies government regulation or enlarges the role of insurance companies only makes a bad system worse. Like the woman described above, most Americans have gotten used to a system in which even their most routine and predictable medical costs must be routed through the maddening labyrinth of insurance procedures.

But nothing could be more counterproductive.

As ever more medical expenses in the United States have been covered by third parties,
private health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, those expenses have gone through
the roof. It's only when medical costs *aren't* reimbursed by a third party. . . . think of
Lasik eye surgery, veterinary care, or the growing number of direct-pay "concierge"
practices that the consumer is king and providers compete to lower prices.

When Americans rely on a third party — private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid — to pay most of their medical bills, they forfeit their power as consumers. Our ill-conceived system of subsidized health plans provided by employers and taxpayer-funded "free" treatment through the government ends up stripping patients of their economic clout.

Doctors and hospitals have little incentive to compete by lowering prices, because patients rarely bother to ask about prices. By and large, health-care providers in the United States do most of their negotiating with insurers or the government. After all, they're the ones paying the piper.

It's only when medical services aren't reimbursed by a third party — think of Lasik eye surgery, or veterinary care, or the growing number of direct-pay "concierge" practices that don't accept health insurance — that the consumer is king.

When providers are paid directly by customers, transactions are transparent, prices fall, choices proliferate, and consumer convenience becomes a priority. Bills reflect actual prices, not inscrutable codes and deductibles and "adjustments" negotiated way over patients' heads.

The purpose of insurance is to protect policyholders from unforeseen or catastrophic expenses. Nobody taps auto insurance to pay for tuneups or new tires; we use it when the car is rear-ended or stolen. We shouldn't be using health insurance to pay for routine checkups, either.

If it seems odd to say so, that's only because we've convinced ourselves that normal medical expenses shouldn't be treated normally.

If we want health care to cost less, we should pay for it ourselves.
_________________________________________

And the price of health care will fall by Jeff Jacoby at The Boston Globe

Manipulated by sleight of hand on climate

Truth Serum Today: Be a Partner in our Free Speech Zone - Click
All You Wanted to Know About the Truth Serum Blog - Click

Click Here to Read More from Marita Noon at Energy Makes America Great

Perhaps you watched the Earth Day news coverage of the “historic” ceremonial signing of the Paris Climate Agreement during which representatives from 175 countries walked up to the stage in the General Assembly hall at the United Nations headquarters in New York, sat down behind a desk on the podium, and added their signatures to the book. “In the name of the United States of America,” Secretary of State John Kerry signed his name with his young granddaughter on his lap.

The event, according to the Wall Street Journal, set “in motion a process to curb the impact of global warming.” The International Business Times said it was “the latest in a series of steps to transform the global accord into an actual tool for combating greenhouse gas emissions and boosting the use of cleaner energy.” Newsweek reported: “the leaders accepted the science of climate change and agreed to work together to do something about it.”

Perhaps the “leaders,” in signing their names, have “accepted the science,” but read what individuals have to say in the comment portion of any of the aforementioned news stories and you’ll see that there is still a great deal of debate regarding global warming—or was it global cooling, or maybe we should just call it climate change. Whatever it is, the alarmists say is urgent.

At the Earth Day gathering, U.N. secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared: “We are in a race against time.”

However, as the new movie Climate Hustle makes perfectly clear, climate alarmists have been making such proclamations for decades.

The film, which is being shown in theaters nationwide on May 2, starts out with clips of many such claims made by the news media and, of course, former Vice President Al Gore.

Marc Morano, the documentary’s host, opens by stating: “We repeatedly hear that the time for debate is past” and then addresses the oft-quoted “97 out 100 scientists agree that climate change is real” narrative. Climate Hustle then crushes both claims—and many more (including whether or not CO2 is “the villain”).

Using a touch of humor and a three-card monte theme, Morano likens the crisis marketing to a sleight of hand; a Climate Hustle. He says: “when the people pushing you to get into the game, the ones predicting a calamitous future due to global warming, don’t show their cards, it is a hustle.” The film shows the cards so the viewers can decide if “they are playing it straight or if you are being hustled.”

Climate Hustle features a history of climate alarmism. Morano asks: “How has the alleged climate consensus changed over time?” While many of us may recall seeing some of the “wild claims,” Climate Hustle puts them all together—and seeing them back-to-back should cause all thinking people to question what we are being told today.

For example, in 1978, Leonard Nimoy, known for his role as Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, announced: “the next ice age is on its way.” He predicted: “unprecedented” hunger and death. In 1972, trusted newscaster Walter Cronkite warned: “A new ice age is creeping over the northern hemisphere.”

The film even quotes one of America’s founding fathers as being worried about climate change. In the late 1700s, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “A change in our climate is taking place.” Then, in 1817, The President of the UK Royal Society, Joseph Banks, addressed the melting polar ice. It’s doubtful that either Jefferson’s or Bank’s concerns were the result of fossil fuel use.

In 1988, the global cooling of the 70s flipped to global warming. Using “stagecraft,” a hearing was scheduled on Capitol Hill on the “hottest day of the year” where James Hansen, wiping his brow, testified about the urgency of global warming.

Repeatedly throughout the past couple of decades, we’ve been pummeled with dire predictions and told “time is short.” In 1989, the UN predicted “Global warming would destroy entire nations by 2000.” In 2007, we were told: “Scientists believe we have less than ten years to bring emissions under control to prevent a catastrophe.”

In 2008, Britain’s Prince Charles said we only had 100 months left to solve the problem. Gore, in 2009, said: “We have to do it this year.” Yet, as the film demonstrates, scientists don’t want to talk about their failed predictions.

Meanwhile, scientists who don’t agree with the “leaders” are accused, by the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., of “treason.” He wants them “in jail.”

Yes, as Climate Hustle makes clear, there are dissenting scientists—but they are marginalized, even called “kooks.” If they speak out, they are insulted, ignored, ridiculed, ostracized, called heretics, hurt professionally, and even terminated for divergent views. This is not the scientific method.

Despite being treated like 17th century “witches,” many scientists are reexamining the evidence and reversing their positions—even calling their previous views: “quite a big mistake.”

Climate Hustle addresses many of the talking points we hear to defend the views held by the signers of the Paris Climate Agreement including polar bears and arctic ice, hurricanes and tornadoes. It explains the flawed models and “the pause.” The lowly armadillo has been heralded as evidence of both global cooling and global warming.

Jumping back and forth from dramatic claims to scientific fact, Climate Hustle helps thinking people see past the fear mongering of the current climate change narrative and examine the global warming evidence for themselves.

In Climate Hustle renowned Swedish sea level expert and climatologist Nils-Axel Mörner concludes: “Geological facts are on one side, lobbying and models are on the other.”

Check to see if Climate Hustle is being shown in your area and watch it on May 2nd so you aren’t taken in by the sleight of hand.
_________________________________________

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy.

Marita hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy - which expands on the content of her weekly column.

Follow her @EnergyRabbit.
_________________________________________

We are compelled to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at] truthserumeditor@gmail.com

Collection of 'Politically Incorrect' toons

Move over Rembrandt, Picasso, Stan Lee - - - here comes Branco

Click Here and You Will Be Directed to the Patriot Depot

Okay, I'm hyperventilating. Tony combines beautiful drawings with biting politically incorrect wit and laugh out loud humor." - Larry Elder - TV and Radio personality at at Fox News and KRLM AM 870.

Lighten things up! Political discussions and debates don't always have to be deep and long-winded arguments with points and counter points.

Sometimes we just need to take a step back from it all and have a good laugh. With so many discouraging things happening in our country lately, that's the only thing we can do to keep from crying.

Conservative artist Antonio Branco is a master at encapsulating deep and complex issues in a simple comic.

In this first book in a series, he takes on a wide array of issues, from food stamps to global warming to foreign policy, Antonio isn't afraid to say what he thinks.

Presented in a coffee table book style, this is the perfect conversation starter with friends and family that pick it up and start glancing through it's pages.

Who knows, that liberal aunt of yours just might come over to the right side because of this book!

Now on sale at the Patriot Depot at a reduced price.

_________________________________________

Truth Serum Today: Be a Partner in our Free Speech Zone - Click
All You Wanted to Know About the Truth Serum Blog - Click

Harvard 'snowflakes' want free tuition

Truth Serum Today: Be a Partner in our Free Speech Zone - Click
All You Wanted to Know About the Truth Serum Blog - Click

Click Here to Read Allen B. West Online

____________________________________________________

One of the themes I’ve been using in speeches recently is the “culture of the participation trophy.” And as soon as I make that reference, the heads in the crowd nod and smiles appear as everyone knows about which I’m referring.

Once upon a time misguided adults who wanted to feel good about themselves came up with this most insidious idea. They believed it would be “fair” and engender self-esteem if all the kids on the athletic fields got a small plastic trinket — it became known as the “participation trophy.” There were even instances where adults lobbied to rule no scores should be kept.

What these adults failed to realize is that the kids always keep score. The kids know who put out the effort, who had “skin in the game” and who rode the bench. But now, this culture of the participation trophy and the sense of entitlement has become a cancerous agent within the millennial demographic. It’s now all about free stuff, social justice, and safe spaces. Don’t believe me? Well, here’s the latest example.

As reported by the Washington Times, “A group of Harvard Law School activists are demanding the graduate school do away with tuition fees, which they argue are “racially biased.”

Members of the group Reclaim Harvard Law School published an open letter Sunday addressed to Law School Dean Martha L. Minow and members of the Harvard Corporation — the University’s highest governing body — demanding an end to tuition costs that they argue impose an unfair financial burden on students of color, The Harvard Crimson reported.

Tuition at the law school will rise to $59,550 for the 2016-2017 academic year, and students are graduating with an average of $149,754 in debt, according to the law school’s website. Reclaim Harvard Law called the trend “outrageous” and asserted, “as a matter of justice, education should be free.”

“The effects of HLS’ astronomical tuition fees are racially biased,” the group wrote in their letter. “Due to the legacy of centuries of white supremacy and plunder, people of color are less likely to have amassed wealth in the United States.

Therefore, these fees disproportionately burden students of color, not only by creating a barrier to attending HLS, but also by constraining the career choices of those who do attend by saddling them with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. How can Harvard Law graduates be expected to advance justice or the well-being of society when they are forced to make career decisions based on paying off this burdensome debt?”

The group did not provide any proposals on how Harvard Law School could feasibly do away with tuition, saying, “answering this is the very job we are paying extraordinary amounts of money for them to do.”

Ok, now that you’ve stopped shaking your head, pounding your fist, laughing your butt off, or spitting your coffee, let’s assess this. First of all, here are kids who’ve qualified to attend a prestigious institution but now say the fees are “racially biased.”

Now of course, that is a load of bovine excrement because tuition and fees are not calculated based on race. So how is it that the tuition at Harvard Law School is “racially biased’?

Ah yes, it’s because of the “legacy of centuries of white supremacy and plunder.” Yep, you got it, it was the superior white man who kept these poor black kids and their families from amassing wealth.

Yep, that ol’ Oprah Winfrey has really and truly been suppressed and kept from being able to amass wealth.

I have a question, if there’s a law school . . . read more here by Colonel Allen B. West
_________________________________________

Smelling blood in the political water

Truth Serum Today: Be a Partner in our Free Speech Zone - Click
All You Wanted to Know About the Truth Serum Blog - Click

Click Here to Visit the CFACT Organization

The great white environmentalist sharks smell blood in the water. It’s gushing from mortally wounded US coal companies that the Obama EPA has gutted as sacrifices on the altar of “dangerous manmade climate change” prevention and other spurious health, ecological and planetary scares.

Peabody Energy, Arch Coal and other once vibrant coal producers have filed for Chapter 11 protection, shedding some $30 billion in shareholder value and tens of thousands of jobs in their companies and dependent industries.

The bloodletting has left communities and states reeling, union pension funds and 401k plans empty, and the health, welfare, hopes and dreams of countless families dashed on the rocks.

President Obama promised to bankrupt coal companies with punitive regulations, and he kept his word.

Hydraulic fracturing did play a role. It made natural gas abundant and inexpensive, and gas-fueled power plants increasingly attractive for utilities that were forced to shutter modern coal-fired units that provided reliable, affordable power, emitted little harmful pollution, and had years of useful life remaining.

However, as economist Stephen Moore noted, coal’s demise wasn’t “a result of free market creative destruction. This was a policy strategy by the White House and green groups. They wanted this to happen.”

“This was what EPA’s Clean Power Plan rules were all about,” Moore adds. “The EPA set standards that by design were impossible to meet, and even flouted the law that says the regs should be ‘commercially achievable.’ This was a key component of the climate change fanaticism that pervades this White House.”

To this president, the EPA and the Left in general, he concludes, “the families whose lives are ruined are collateral damage to achieve their utopian dream of saving the planet.” It’s a Climate Hustle.

It is today’s equivalent of New York Times Moscow Bureau Chief and Stalin apologist Walter Duranty’s favorite line: “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.” But after tens of millions of broken human “eggs,” where are the communist and green utopia omelets?

40,000 elderly Europeans died this past winter, because they could no longer afford adequate wintertime heat, after EU climate policies sent electricity rates “necessarily skyrocketing” more than 40% since 1997.

Millions die every year in Africa from lung, intestinal and other readily preventable diseases, while President Obama tells Africans they should forego fossil fuels and rely on wind, solar and biofuel power, because “if every one of you has got a car and … a big house, well, the planet will boil over.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama joined Chinese, Indian and other world leaders in signing the Paris climate treaty on Earth Day, ignoring the requirement for Senate ratification. The hypocrisy and insanity are boundless.

The treaty will obligate the United States and other developed nations to slash their fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth. China, India and other developing economies are under no such requirement, unless and until it is in their interest to do so.

For them, compliance is voluntary – and it should be. They simply cannot afford to eliminate fuels that supply 85% of all global energy and are their ticket out of poverty and into the world of modern health and prosperity that we enjoy, thus far.

In fact, while unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are shutting down US coal-fired generators, these countries have built over 1,000 coal-fired power plants and plan to build 2,300 more – 1,400 gigawatts of new electricity.

China and India account for 1,077 GW of this total. They are also lining up for free energy technology and billions of dollars a year from developed nations for climate change “reparations.”

That is why poor countries signed the Paris treaty. It has nothing to do with preventing climate change.

But none of this has stopped the environmentalist sharks from starting a fossil fuels feeding frenzy. The bloodied American coal companies have them churning the water, chomping for more. They’ve launched a “keep it in the ground” movement, to make hydrocarbons off limits forever.

In fact, environmentalism is morphing into an anti-hydrocarbons climate movement that claims every weather event and climate blip is unprecedented, a harbinger of Armageddon – and caused by our using oil, gas and coal to power modern civilization and improve human health and living standards.

Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle tallies 350.org and 20 other climate coalitions, comprised of 467 separate organizations, just in the USA. Funded and directed by Rockefeller and other wealthy liberal foundations, they increasingly rail against “dangerous manmade climate change” as an “existential threat” to humanity and planet.

President Obama is totally onboard. His policy and regulatory agenda confirms that. So are Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and most of an increasingly far-Left Democrat Party. Sanders flatly opposes all “fracking” and has introduced legislation to keep America’s abundant fossil fuels locked up in perpetuity.

Clinton opposes all fossil fuel energy extraction from federal lands, wants to block fracking by imposing countless regulatory obstacles, and intends to make the United States 50% dependent on renewable energy by 2030. As president, they would achieve this by executive decree.

The consequences would be disastrous: enormous acreage, water, fertilizer, pesticides and fuel devoted to producing biofuel, millions of birds and bats butchered by wind turbines to generate electricity, millions of jobs lost, millions of families sent into fuel poverty as energy costs rocket upward. For what benefits?

The rest of the world will continue using hydrocarbons. That means, even assuming CO2 now drives Earth’s climate, ]implementing EPA’s draconian Clean Power Plan would keep average planetary temperatures from rising an undetectable 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit, and seas from rising an imperceptible 0.01 inches, by the end of the century.

(Oceans have already risen 400 feet since the last nature-driven ice age ended and all those mile-high glaciers melted.) See CFACT’s Climate Hustle movie on Monday!

The “keep it in the ground” crowd doesn’t care about this or the mounting death tolls resulting from their anti-fossil fuel policies. The typical voter or street protester probably hasn’t thought it through. But the leaders have.

They’re just callously indifferent. It’s one more depressing example of “the well-intentioned but ill-informed being led around by the ill-intentioned but well-informed.”

Politicians, environmentalists, alarmist scientists and renewable energy industrialists have built a $1.5-trillion-per-year Climate Crisis industry that gives them research grants, campaign cash, mandates, huge subsidies – and vast regulatory power to eliminate conventional energy; make electricity rates skyrocket; fundamentally transform economic systems; control lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties; and redistribute the world’s wealth. Poor, minority and working class families will suffer most.

The ruling elites don’t care. They will do well, travel often, keep their pensions and get still wealthier. Climate rules, deprivation and “sustainability” are for the Little People.

This entire system is based on the unproven bald assertion that fossil fuels are causing dangerous and unprecedented weather and climate disruption … carbon dioxide has replaced the complex natural forces that drove drive climate change in previous centuries … there is no longer any room for debate over these “facts” … and the only issue still open to discussion is what to do to avert “imminent catastrophe.”

We “skeptics” challenge these claims. We point out that Earth’s temperature, climate and weather have always changed in response to powerful natural forces, and differ little today from what they have been for the past 50-150 years. We say the problem is not climate change, but policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change. We threaten the Climate Crisis Establishment, and its money and power.

That’s why they want to shut us up and shut us down – by prosecuting us for “racketeering,” and denying us our constitutional rights to speak out about policies that affect our lives. It is a disgraceful, un-American return to Inquisition tactics and fascist book burnings.

We must all take a stand, fight back and assert our rights. Otherwise, our children face a grim future.

________________________________________