Students Don’t Know Where Electricity Comes But Are Being Indoctrinated in Global Warming

/0 Comments/in , /by

When I went to grade school, one of the first field trips our class made, was to a hydro electric dam.

After the hour ride, the bus parked and we were taken for a guided tour through a maze of machinery, deep inside the main power generating operations of a massive hydro electric dam.

I never forgot that day, as the manager of the complex proudly explained how electricity was produced by water turning the blades of the huge generators and how it flowed through power lines to everyone in the community

This education was provided at an early impressionable age and gave me the basic knowledge of how power is produced and relayed to every home and factory in America. We went on to learn, with coal, oil, gas, or nuclear; the principle was the same…Produce energy at an affordable price to power our modern society.

We also learned that protecting the environment was important, as stringent controls were put on our power producing facilities. Soon the skies of our cities were clear as those laws took effect. We all breathed easier.

But something happened in intervening years and a new message has come out to our children. Instead of taking a field trip to a local power generating plant to see how wonderful modern power is for our country, children were treated to an Al Gore movie. His movie, “The Inconvenient Truth,” shows the earth is on the edge of an environmental disaster caused by the very fuels that power our society.

Although Al Gore has been preaching disaster for many years and claimed his version of climate science is settled “science,” thousands of scientists, physicists, phd’s, meteorologists, and others very much disagree with his facts.

So why did many of our public schools decide to force our young children to watch the Al Gore climate movie without first questioning the truth of his science? That’s a good question and needs to be answered. What is the agenda?

Since the Gore movie was released in 2006, it has been shown to millions of school age children and portrayed as scientific fact. It has scared them. It leads them to believe that fossil energy is evil and the use of it will mean the destruction of the earth.

Along with the anti fossil fuel message; a line of thought set on the destruction of many of our hydro electric dams is starting to creep in. The dam destruction is done in the name of restoring our environment to its original condition…before the presence of modern man spoiled it.

Of course nuclear power has been maligned so long it will never get over the stigma of being non earth friendly.

That leaves us with wind/solar/bio fuels and unicorn dust to power our modern society. Which if past performance and present technology demonstrate, there is a dark and bankrupt future in store for our country.

An interesting video was sent my way a few days ago. These are University of Chicago students who are speaking about having their school and other institutions divest themselves of fossil energy investments.

As you can see, they lack an understanding of what comes next. What approved method of power will take the place of our carbon based energy they are so fearful of?

These kids were freshmen in high school when they first viewed the Al Gore film and it seems they never got an alternate message to it. I’ll also suppose they never were able to take a field trip to a local power generating facility to see exactly what it takes to turn on the lights and heat their homes.

Perhaps it’s time to revise our school curriculum’s, to be more rounded and show the other side of the war on our energy sector…Just what the consequences will be if our country “divests itself” of our fossil energy.

___________________________________________

Ed Farnan is the conservative columnist at IrishCentral, where he has been writing on the need for energy independence, strong self defense, secure borders, 2nd amendment, smaller government and many other issues. His articles appear in many publications throughout the USA and world. He has been a guest on Fox News and a regular guest on radio stations in the US and Europe.

Boehner Tax Increase Sparks Conservative Backlash

/4 Comments/in , /by

Sen. Jim DeMint, a tea party favorite, ripped House Republican leaders for offering a budget framework that embraced new taxes, saying the GOP plan to raise $800 billion in new revenue would hurt the economy, kill jobs and not reduce the national debt by a penny.

“This isn’t rocket science,” Mr. DeMint, South Carolina Republican, said. “Everyone knows that when you take money out of the economy, it destroys jobs, and everyone knows that when you give politicians more money, they spend it. This is why Republicans must oppose tax increases and insist on real spending reductions that shrink the size of government and allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money.”

Led by House Speaker John A. Boehner, House GOP leaders sent a $2.2 trillion “fiscal cliff” counteroffer to President Obama on Monday that included the $800 billion in tax increases, which would be generated through eliminating loopholes and deductions in the federal tax code.

Read more from this story HERE.

Tax Exodus: Five States that Residents Are Fleeing

/7 Comments/in , /by

The past few years have really put the squeeze on cash-strapped states to find new sources of revenue. This environment has generated a level of tax aggression from certain states, which in turn has resulted in a net loss of revenue instead of the intended gain. Residents have begun voting with their feet, deciding to move out of the state instead of thinning their pocket through unwanted taxation. So which states are chasing away their residents? And how does it impact you if you live in one of them? We track migratory patterns through our residency product data, and while some of the states are no-brainers, others may surprise you. Following are our top five ‘shrinking’ states in ascending order:

5. Ohio: The Buckeye State is one of the few around that actually has a balanced budget. One of the reasons is because they tax their residents so well. The interesting part about Ohio though, is that a constant stream has always existed out of the state. Some of the migration is probably due to weather, but they also have very strict well-defined rules surrounding residency. Ohio’s Bright-Line Test names the specific number of days over, under, and in between that dictate someone as resident, non-resident, or other (the burden of proof is on the resident in question for ‘other’). These rules make it simple for an Ohioan to decide whether to stay put or make a run for it.

4. New Jersey: Oh, Jersey. Always the brunt of jokes, our most densely populated state, and a bastion of high taxation. Including local taxes, New Jersey has the highest tax rate in the country. Without going into painful detail, the cocktail of crowded, expensive, and verbal assault makes the Garden State an easy exit for most.

3. California: The Golden State is nearly a tie for the number-two spot, and we are constantly surprised it isn’t at the top of the list given the fiscal issues present there. Municipality balance sheets are in shambles, the state already has high tax rates, and many residents are staying close but merely hopping the border into more tax advantageous states like Nevada. Yes, the weather can be great, the people creative, and they still have one of the most productive economies around, but we haven’t seen a decrease in the flow of residents out of the state which is always a cause for concern.

2. New York: One of the easy guesses for sure. New York has been bleeding residents for some time. Tom Golisano, the founder of Paychex (NASDAQ:PAYX), wrote a letter that was published in the New York Post about why he was leaving the state. And he didn’t mince words, explaining he was taxed out of the state for greener pastures to no-income-tax Florida. And it shouldn’t be a shock, Florida welcomed him with open arms.

Read more from this story HERE.

Deceitful Debate Over Women in Combat

/4 Comments/in , /by

Oblivious to important differences between men and women, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the Department of Defense to lift all combat exemptions for women. Not putting women into combat deprives them of their constitutional rights, the ACLU is arguing on behalf of four servicewomen in a complaint filed Tuesday in a federal court in San Francisco.

“It’s harming women in the field now,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with ACLU Northern California, to U.S. News & World Report. “Significant numbers of women have fought alongside their male counterparts in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in fact, are fighting in combat situations.”

Talk about harm. Women are coming home maimed or in body bags. A saner course would be to suggest that the military rethink its decision to put women closer to combat.

In the ACLU’s parallel universe, women are just as aggressive, strong, fast and warlike as men. You know, like in the National Football League, where female linebackers strike terror in the hearts of Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers.

Much of the pressure for this march toward barbarism is coming from career feminist military personnel, who argue that lack of combat experience hurts their chances for advancement. In other words, because a few women want to climb the ladder of rank, all women in the military should be put at risk for combat duty, whether they want it or not…

The military has kept women out of direct ground combat for a moral reason: Deliberately putting women in harm’s way is not right; and for practical reasons: Women are not as physically strong, and they have an impact on the men around them. In a civilized society, men are raised to protect women. Now some of America’s elite warrior units train men to be indifferent to women’s screams. That’s what passes for “progress” in a “progressive” military.

Read more from this story HERE.

Romney Campaign Regrets Immigration Stance

/13 Comments/in , /by

Mitt Romney and his team are not eager to dwell on regrets.

But his campaign manager now says that the forceful posture taken against immigration in the Republican primary inflicted lingering damage with Latino voters in the general election.

The Romney campaign chief, Matt Rhoades, acknowledged that point during a forum here at the Harvard University Institute of Politics, where advisers to all candidates in the 2012 campaign gathered to discuss the race.

When asked directly whether Mr. Romney regretted tacking to the right on immigration to appeal to conservative primary voters, the room fell silent.

Stuart Stevens, a senior strategist to Mr. Romney, shook his head no. But after pausing for several seconds, Mr. Rhoades said, “I regret that.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Boehner Scoffs After Called on Purging Real Conservatives from Powerful Committee

/23 Comments/in , , /by

Boehner Spokesman Kevin Smith responds- “The Steering Committee makes decisions based on a range of factors.”

House Speaker John Boehner and GOP leadership have removed several conservative House members from their respective powerful committee positions, Breitbart News has learned.

Effective next Congress, leadership pulled Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash and Arizona Republican Rep. David Schweikert off committees from which they could exert conservative pressure on fiscal matters. Amash and Huelskamp were pulled from the Budget Committee and Schweikert from the Financial Services Committee.

Huelskamp, a freshman elected during the 2010 tea party wave, thinks the leadership move to pull him from the powerful committee is revenge for him standing up for conservatism. “It is little wonder why Congress has a 16 percent approval rating: Americans send principled representatives to change Washington and get punished in return,” Huelskamp said in a Monday night statement. “The GOP leadership might think they have silenced conservatives, but removing me and others from key committees only confirms our conservative convictions. This is clearly a vindictive move, and a sure sign that the GOP Establishment cannot handle disagreement.”

Earlier on Monday in an interview with Breitbart News, Huelskamp again reaffirmed his support for the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) anti-tax pledge. He’s encouraging his colleagues in the House to come out publicly against potential tax increases and asking citizens across the country to help.

Read more from this story HERE.

Tea Party Split: FreedomWorks Chair, Dick Armey, Resigns

/1 Comment/in , /by

.In a move not publicly announced, former Rep. Dick Armey, the folksy conservative leader, has resigned as chairman of FreedomWorks, one of the main political outfits of the conservative movement and an instrumental force within the tea party.

Armey, the former House majority leader who helped develop and promote the GOP’s Contract with America in the 1990s, tendered his resignation in an memo sent to Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks, on November 30. Mother Jones obtained the email on Monday, and Armey has confirmed he sent it. The tone of the memo suggests that this was not an amicable separation. (See Armey’s email below.) Armey demanded that he be paid until his contract ended on December 31; that FreedomWorks remove his name, image, or signature “from all its letters, print media, postings, web sites, videos, testimonials, endorsements, fund raising materials, and social media, including but not limited to Facebook and Twitter”; and that FreedomWorks deliver the copy of his official congressional portrait to his home in Texas.

“The top management team of FreedomWorks was taking a direction I thought was unproductive, and I thought it was time to move on with my life,” Armey tells Mother Jones. “At this point, I don’t want to get into the details. I just want to go on with my life.”

In the email, Armey indicated that he wants nothing to do with FreedomWorks anymore. He asked that all user names, passwords, and security-related data created in his name be emailed to him by the close of business on December 4. He even insisted that FreedomWorks—”effective immediately”—was “prohibited” from using a booklet he authored. Was Armey’s resignation a reaction to the recent election results? “Obviously I was not happy with the election results,” he says. “We might’ve gotten better results if we had gone in a different direction. But it isn’t that I got my nose out of line because we should’ve done better.”

Armey declined to specify his disagreements with FreedomWorks. Asked if they were ideological or tactical, he replies, “They were matters of principle. It’s how you do business as opposed to what you do. But I don’t want to be the guy to create problems.”

Read more from this story HERE

Video: Sarah Palin-Socialism Rising in the United States

/3 Comments/in , /by

In last night’s interview with Hannity, Sarah Palin bluntly suggests that the United States is headed in the completely wrong direction. She maintains that socialism is rising.

But Palin has hope: she believes that Americans will realize, similar to Margaret Thatcher’s observation, that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.

She hits the “crony capitalists” as the problem – not capitalism – and says that people get confused between free market capitalism and the the crony approach taken by most DC politicians.

Palin also hammers Obama for his confiscatory policies, his efforts to redistribute wealth in the US.

Congress Urged: Investigate Vote Fraud Now!

/2 Comments/in , , /by

GOP poll inspectors illegally removed from voting locations.

More than 100 percent of registered voters turning out to vote.

Computers reverting to a default Obama vote, regardless of whom the voter selects.

Absentee ballots counted while neutral observers are blocked from supervising.

Military ballots not delivered on time to active-duty servicemen and women around the world.

Illegal campaign contributions, deceased and illegal-alien voters, “lost ballots” and intimidation at the polls.

It’s enough to make voters ask: Does America still have free, fair and accurate elections?

Sign the petition urging Congress to investigate HERE.

The True Right to Secede Comes from God, Not the Constitution

/2 Comments/in , /by

In an article I saw this week at WND, Pat Buchanan writes of the Declaration of Independence:

The declaration was signed by 56 angry old white guys who had had enough of what the Cousins were doing to them. In seceding from the mother country, these patriots put their lives, fortunes and honor on the line.

Four score and five years later, 11 states invoked the same right “to dissolve the political bands” of the Union and form a new nation. After 620,000 had perished, the issue of a state’s right to secede was settled at Appomattox. If that right had existed, it no longer did.

I have no idea why Buchanan refers to the signers as “old.” The mean average age of the men who signed the Declaration was 44.5. The oldest signer was Benjamin Franklin at 70 (though given his personality his colleagues, and the ladies at the Court of France, would probably have pegged it considerably lower). The youngest signers were Thomas Lynch Jr. and Edward Rutledge, at 26. Nearly two-thirds of the signers were in their 30’s or 40’s. Unless he accepts the silly notion that anyone over thirty is old (even less true today than when it was in vogue back in the 60’s), calling the signers “old men” leaves rather a false impression.

Not being a leftist, or one of the dubiously self-professed “conservatives” who regrets the outcome of the War between the States, I see no reason even subtly to denigrate the physical or mental acuity of the people who signed the Declaration. Yet I can’t agree with Buchanan that the right to secede was settled at Appomattox. Buchanan’s statement to that effect reflects the inadequate thinking that results when people use the word “right” as though it’s synonymous with “freedom.” Every right is a use of freedom; but not every use of freedom is a right. The distinction rests on whether the use of freedom satisfies or violates the standard that justifies the assertion of right.

People with sufficient power may successfully use it to enslave others. But given the self-evident truths set out in the Declaration of Independence, such use of their freedom violates the standard of right which impelled the people of the United States “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” The Civil War was therefore not about the right to secede. It was about whether some of the States, frustrated in their efforts to compel the others to enforce and extend their wrongdoing, should be allowed violently to disrupt and attack the government justly ordained and established by the consent of the whole people of the United States, including their own.

President Lincoln clearly anticipated war. But he carefully refrained from authorizing any military initiative against the Confederacy until a facility of the Constitutional government came under violent attack. He then acted to suppress armed insurrection against the Constitutionally-established government of the United States. This was Constitutionally his duty as President of the United States.

Lincoln’s restraint demonstrated his understanding of the issue at stake in the Civil War. In light of that understanding, the outcome of the war did not decide the issue of a state’s right to secede, because the Confederate States were not exercising a right. They were engaged in wrongdoing. Their actions were wrong in principle (i.e., according to the Declaration’s principles of God-endowed justice); and in terms of the U.S. Constitution. The latter requires the President, by oath, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It nowhere requires or authorizes the States (or any of their officers) to use force to attack the Constitutionally-established government of the United States.

This does not mean that there is no right to secede. Read more from this story HERE.