IF only there was more time to cover the rest of the most important issues.. .. but 10% is a good start.
Segel: Green Energy – America’s Lie
It is doubtful that if a truly honest person could be found, Americans would elect that individual to public office. We have historically managed to gather a collection of fork tongued intellectuals and slick talking con artists together into one large gang and allow them to run the country. You think not! Well it is not only in America. Liars have been running the governments of all nations since the days when Plato and Aristotle spoke on this human failing.
One of the biggest deceptions being voiced by our current Administration and its minions in Congress concerns the viability and practicality of Green Energy. Those who have already swallowed this government mythology have strongly bought into the idea that these multiple alternative energy sources will end our need for fossil fuels, clean up our environment, reduce costs and save the planet.
You have read in previous articles my rage about the government lies related to corn-based ethanol. It not only limits one of our main food sources, but also drives up the price on dozens of products from soda pop to plastics that utilize corn in their manufacture.
Farmers can grow and average of 7,110 pounds of corn per acre. This can be processed into 328 gallons of ethanol. That same corn requires 140 gallons of fossil fuel, which at today’s pump prices, would total more than $1200. Using that rationale, ethanol has already been heavily subsidized even before it is processed from the raw corn. During the processing there is only 8 percent extracted in the form of alcohol, with more energy expended to reach that point. An additional process is required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol needed for mixing with gasoline. It requires 131,00 BTUs of energy to make one gallon of ethanol and that one-gallon only produces 77,000 BTUs of energy, or a loss of 54,000 BTUs of energy for each gallon of ethanol produced. It costs $1.74 per gallon to produce ethanol. 95 cents is the cost to produce a gallon of gasoline. On top of all this, the government is subsidizing ethanol to the tune of $1 billion a year. You do the math on the value of this green energy source.
Wind energy may be the closest we have come to reaching balance of cost vs. result. It too, has limited value. There just might be strong value in wind farms located in Deep South Texas. Most of the time there is wind blowing off the Gulf of Mexico. However, national studies have revealed that a utility company can only count of wind generated electricity for about 30% of its power. The remainder of the time wind is not blowing strong enough to yield satisfactory electrical output.
Since each turbine blade is more than 120 feet in length, the noise level of wind driven energy is severe. People who reside within a mile of a wind farm must suffer a continuing noise background and incorporate it into their daily lives. In reality it means wind farms must be located far away from population centers, thus increasing the cost of connecting them to the main grid.
“So”, you ask, “what about solar?” It has been touted as being silent and quietly operating every day. It has been praised for adding to the savings on electricity. It places no pollutants into the air or our overall environment.
My best example of solar folly can come right from my hometown of Harlingen, Texas. The city fathers have been elated at their newest contribution to green energy. Headlines in the daily newspaper read “Solar Panels Equal Savings for Harlingen. Just what are those savings?
Through the American Reinvestment Recovery Act, which many citizens refer to as “Porkqules”, the city received a grant of $645,100 to install 308 solar panels on a municipal building. According to City Commissioner Robert Leftwich, “This will save the city money in the long run and will create a more sustainable and economically responsible model.”
Well, the commissioner must have forgotten his calculator. By the city’s own estimates these panels will save the taxpayers $7,500 a year in energy costs.
If some quick math is undertaken it can be seen that in 25 years a savings of $187,500 will be realized by Harlingen. Since the project has a cost of more than $600,000, which already came out of taxpayer pocketbooks…and since the life span of a solar panel is only 25 years, the American public has taken another tax loss beating.
But, go ahead America; keep buying into the fraud of Green Energy. After all more than 40% of you are not putting any money into the operation of our nation.
Just the tip of the “iceberg”…
Party: Democrat Birthday: Oct 24, 1956 / 54 years old
Merkley’s latest tweet:(see TweetCongress) “The Oregonian agrees: We have achieved our objectives in Afghanistan and it is time to bring our sons and daughters home http://t.co/gBUJ9Up.” (Jun 27, 2011)
Official YouTube Feed“Merkley: Democracy Can’t Work if We Can’t Debate and Vote on Bills”
Sep 30, 2010 6:11 PM.
Below are the past and present terms in the Senate, House, and White House held by Jeff Merkley:
When Role Representing 2009-2014 U.S. Senator Oregon (was preceeded by Gordon Smith)
according to GovTrack’s own analysis of bill sponsorship. The graph to the left shows Merkley as a large dot among his peers, with the left-right axis indicating ideology and the up-down axis representing legislative leadership.
These labels come from the Political Spectrum & Legislative Leadership statistical analysis that we have carried out. The statistical analysis is blind to party affiliation and the content of bills. From there, we have divided the Members of Congress into far-left/right, rank-and-file, and centrist; and leader, rank-and-file, or lonely (i.e. follower) by 20th and 80th percentiles.
790 roll call votes
Jan 11, 2009.
The graph to the left shows the number of missed votes
over time. Click for a larger chart and a list of recent votes.
Money & Influence
The top campaign contribution to Merkley in 2007-2008 was
$179,987 from employees of ActBlue.
Jeff Merkley’s net worth was between $1,516,026 and $3,915,998 in 2007,
according to Merkley’s mandated financial disclosure statements.
For more information, see the Center for Responsive Politics’ page for Merkley.
Jeff Merkley sits on the following committees:Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban AffairsMember, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and PensionsMember, Senate Committee on the Budget
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship
Jeff Merkley has sponsored
Jan 6, 2009
of which 25
haven’t made it out of committee
were successfully enacted.
Merkley has co-sponsored
bills during the same time period.
(The count of enacted bills considers only bills
actually sponsored by Merkley and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)
Some of Merkley’s most recently sponsored bills include…
View All… (including bills from previous years)
Photo from the Congresspedia.
This is one of our Senators. We can’t afford to let this happen to us again.
25 Years of Rocky Balboa – The “Progressive” Left’s Nightmare
By: Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, July 03, 2001
THIS YEAR, 2001, marks the 225th anniversary of the birth of the United States – and, not unrelatedly, the 25th anniversary of the creation of Rocky Balboa, perhaps the most powerful symbol of the Spirit of ’76 in contemporary pop culture.
In 1976, Sylvester Stallone created, and acted in, his all-time classic “Rocky,” which won the Academy award for best picture. There would be four more sequels. Rocky just kept coming back. And he still lives on – in our imagination.
Rocky Balboa symbolized something far more than a simple-minded pugilist. Indeed, his character transcended the dynamics of the boxing ring and came to represent the values upon which America itself thrived. It was especially “Rocky I” that touched the heart and soul of the American character, precisely because it celebrated the theme of the triumph of the human spirit, and of individual initiative – against all odds. In other words, it told us the story of the American Dream.
And it is this very fact which explains something that had confused me throughout my childhood years. As a youngster, I lived and breathed Rocky. I jumped up and down watching his first two sequels, just as I cried to them. And that is why I was always in complete and utter dismay when I came around Leftists and the topic of Rocky Balboa surfaced. Among no one else had I ever witnessed such angry and unquenchable rage directed at the movie, and the character, that had so moved my heart and inspired my youth. It was a mystery to me why these people could hardly contain themselves when expressing their disdain for my favorite character, as they foamed at the mouth, castigating the film with every obscenity that was available in their vocabulary.
On this 25th anniversary of Rocky, I reflect on this mystery of my youth. After many years of dissecting and diagnosing the Leftist mindset, I can say, with confidence, that it is no longer a mystery to me. It is simply just a phenomenon, I suppose, wherein resides enough material to justify an entire psychiatric conference.
In “Rocky I,” we witness the trials and tribulations of Rocky Balboa, an underclass boxer from the slums of Philadelphia. He is the “Italian Stallion” and he empowers himself through the boxing ring. At first, we see Rocky as a small-time boxer who fights in the ring for spare change and earns his living as a debt collector for a loan shark. And yet, Rocky is given the opportunity to take a shot at the “American Dream.” And even though he loses the final contest by a split decision, he still succeeds as a fighter, and as a human being. The main theme cannot be more clear: the individual can succeed against all odds – as long as he contributes the determination and perspiration. The American Dream is possible for all Americans.
And it is here that we get our first hint of why it is impossible to meet a Leftist that likes “Rocky.” Ideologues who build their life on hating the United States, and on seeing it as an economically and politically unjust social order, simply cannot humanize themselves long enough to enjoy the human dimensions of such a film. This would be a treasonous betrayal of their political faith.
I decided to talk to my friend Peter Sheldrick about this phenomenon. An actor and scriptwriter who is the founder of the “Role of the Dice Theatre Company” in Toronto, he is probably the greatest fan of “Rocky” in the world. It would be no exaggeration to say that he has watched all five Rocky movies more than, let us say, one hundred Rocky fans put together. Almost every third time I talk to him, he is either watching, or preparing to watch, or having just finished watching, a Rocky movie, and it is usually “Rocky I.” Before I can even say anything, he usually breaks out into a passionate analysis of certain scenes that are on his mind.
I must say that Peter always hits a chord in me when he talks about “Rocky,” because, like him, I find it difficult to watch the first two sequels without experiencing a wide spectrum of emotions, and always shedding some tears.
So I decided to ask Peter what it is about “Rocky” that he loves so much and why, in his view, the Left hates the character and the themes that he represents. Peter tells me,
I have sat in the company of Leftists while watching Rocky and there were times when I was on the brink of tears, while they were complaining about ‘class structure’ in the movie or something or other. They cannot view a human film about the human heart through the eyes of a human – especially when its themes violate their sacred political vision. They hate the movie for what it is, and for what it isn’t. It’s like going to a comedy club and complaining that comedians are telling jokes and that people are laughing. It must be a very torturous experience to live your life as a Leftist, because you are basically trying to deny your own natural impulses at all times, as well as trying to suppress them in others.
True enough, the Left has always seen the human being as an entity made of clay that must be reshaped. That’s what Rousseau and Marx, after all, were all about, and why the Soviet experiment in the 20th century attempted to build the perfect Soviet man. Despite the horrors that these ideas perpetrated against humanity, Leftists hold on desperately to this vision of the human being’s malleability. It is no mystery, therefore, why even the thought of Rocky Balboa sends Leftists into convulsions. Peter continues,
Look at the whole man-woman theme that “Rocky” so touchingly and powerfully portrays. For instance, Rocky represents a tough and masculine man. We hardly ever see this any more in our popular culture. That’s because there has been a feminization of our culture for the sake of political correctness. I can only think of Bruce Willis in “Die Hard” as another exception. He is an action hero that represents masculinity.
In “Rocky,” some of the most beautiful parts are when Rocky talks to Adrian about being a man. This is about life, about the human condition, and it reaches into something that is real in all of us. It is about Rocky expressing not only his need to confront his challenges, but also to face his vulnerability and his fear. It is about being human. There is something about what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman. But how many times have we heard these words being used in our pop culture in 2001? We don’t hear them any more – because our basic human impulses are now being censored. Rocky violates this fascist code.
I agree with Peter. Rocky sure does violate that code. At the heart of the Leftist dream is the destruction of gender roles, since gender is seen as something that is socially constructed and oppressive. It is no surprise, therefore, that the muscle-bound Rocky, who has to be a “man” and get into the ring, so infuriates the Left. As the author Susan Jeffords explains in her book Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the Reagan Era, the very presence of a muscular man in a movie is an act of hatred against women. The portrait of a heroic, aggressive, and determined American male is all about political ideology and how a certain notion of “masculinity” is imposed on males – to the disadvantage of females.
Jeffords’ repudiation of “hard” male bodies in American popular culture comes with certain intriguing implications. One of them is that, when true equality finally arrives, men will get into the boxing ring with no muscles at all, and, hopefully, just with sagging chests and fatty blubber all over them. Within a true utopia, perhaps, instead of wearing boxing trunks and boots, male boxers will be fitted in thongs and high-heeled shoes. Preferably, of course, there will be no boxing at all. And maybe no men at all either.
Peter points out that the Left clearly also has a problem with the way in which Rocky and Adrian love one another. He observes,
Rocky consistently tells Adrian that he is a man and that he has to do what a man has to do. Adrian, meanwhile, agrees, despite her reservations, to stand by him and support him — because she is his woman. It is also a very loving relationship. In “Rocky I,” he makes her feel like a woman – something that has been hiding inside of her. He brings it out of her. She hides behind her clothes, and her glasses. There is a powerful scene, and I think it is one of the most powerful scenes in film history, when Rocky takes her glasses off, and breaks the boundaries behind which she has been hiding her femininity. He kisses her for the first time. It is here that we see the male seduction of a woman – that timeless ingredient of our human condition, that glorious ingredient of our beautiful condition. If I think of a Leftist watching this, well yes, of course, they hate all of these themes. They want to liquidate such realities – especially if they are represented by “Rocky.”
“Rocky” does not, of course, just violate the Leftist Party line on gender. The film also transgresses the “Progressive” faith about economic and social opportunity in oppressive capitalist America. Sheldrick explains,
The first “Rocky” is clearly about the American Dream. Rocky is given the chance to be better in life, to succeed. The Left simply hates the idea that America is a land of opportunity. But Stallone celebrates America as a land where people are given chances and can succeed in pursuing them. The key here is that Rocky succeeds on an individual level. It is him against the odds. Thus, we see the triumph of the individual and, once again, of the human spirit. For the Left, the individual is to be erased, and the human spirit simply does not exist. That is why Leftists cannot even feel an emotional tingle while watching the most moving parts of “Rocky,” because they are sitting there the whole time agonizing about why everyone isn’t sharing everything. They simply deny that there are certain universal realities that no society can change or erase.
Peter hits a chord in me on this note. During my doctoral studies in history, several graduate students used to explain to me that “Rocky” was a terrible and oppressive movie, since it perpetuated inequality. At that time, having no idea how anyone could even watch the movie thinking of these things, I would ask what they were talking about. They answered that Rocky achieved his success on an “individualistic basis.” But for true “social justice” to be achieved, they counselled, the revolution had to be fought on a “collective front.” A close friend of mine told me that my eyes used to glaze over when I heard these arguments. Is this what some people were thinking about while watching “Rocky?” No wonder I always preferred to hang out with my hoodlum friends rather than with the majority of “intellectuals” that I knew.
But I gradually began to understand where this mentality came from: the veneration of Marxism. The authors Michael Ryan and Douglas Kellner, in their book, Camera Politica. The Politics and Ideology of Contemporary Hollywood Film, provide us with the popular Marxist criticism of “Rocky” that left-wing academics strenuously uphold. The authors argue that, in “Rocky,”
the desire to overcome the limited life possibilities which capitalism bestows on its bottom rung is generally limited to individualistic forms, which tend to reinforce the founding values and the legitimating ideology of the class system….It cannot help but reinforce the legitimacy of structural inequality, for it suggests that those who get out of the working class are better, more endowed individually, than their fellows.
In other words, “Rocky” violates the principle of how the fight against capitalism has to occur on a group basis, and not on an individualistic one. I remember, once, when a graduate student in sociology was explaining this to me, I asked, “but boxing is between two fighters! How are so many people supposed to get in the ring? It wouldn’t even work!” This particular “intellectual” shook his head upon hearing this question and waved me off. He clearly felt sorry for me. Obviously I had not been anointed, as he had been, with the privileged and “progressive” vision of the future utopia. He was, you see, very cutting-edge.
I still can’t help but wonder: if individuals such as these had it their way, what would the “Rocky” movies even be about? They obviously wouldn’t be about anything, since they would be edited into non-existence. Come to think about it, what kind of movies would exist if my former colleagues achieved total power? Ten-hour movies about workers slugging away in factories? Could anyone even sit through such films?
In the end, it is obvious that “Rocky” epitomizes the ingredients of human life, with all of its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, as well as with its hope, success and joy. And that is why Peter cherishes the character of Rocky Balboa. He concludes,
I tingle every time I see that part, in the first Rocky, when he visits the arena where the fight will take place. He goes there the night before. He can’t sleep. At that moment, he has confronted his fear. Then he comes back to Adrian and he tells her that he knows that he is going to lose. But he says that he just wants to be standing by the 15th round. His dream, his hope, is that he will just be standing……And I choke up every time I see that scene, and every time I think of that scene, because every single one of us that has lived this life we live, and can still feel with our hearts, knows what Rocky is talking about, and what he is feeling. And we can’t put it into perfect words, because it transcends, in some ways, who we are. But in our struggle in this life, against all the bloody odds, in all of its sweat and tears, we just want to be able to say that we were still standing. And it’s about pride, and it’s about fear, and it’s about courage. And that’s where Rocky moves mountains in my spirit.
And when the fight with Apollo Creed is over, when Adrian comes to the ring, she loses her hat. And, I mean, Rocky…..he has just been in the greatest war of his life, and he has confronted his fear, and his face is broken, and the first thing he says to her is, `Where is your hat?’ And that question pierces my heart. It shows us the essential importance of our simplicity, and of caring for each other and about each other. That question is about Rocky forgetting about himself, because his battle is over, and his next step is to love. He’s already done what he has to do. Now it’s time to move on with Adrian. And then they hug and you see the relief and the contentment in that final sigh, where we know that a synthesis has been achieved. And I think that goes for each of us in our lives, where we must be self-centered to the point of becoming who we are, and then to take all of it and to give it to another human being.
Sheldrick becomes silent, and we both remain silent for a moment, as the interview ends, and we quietly appreciate what Rocky means to the both of us, and to so many of the people that were inspired by him.
And on this 25th anniversary of “Rocky,” I reflect on Rocky Balboa and how much he has made an impact on my own life. No other character, perhaps, so powerfully reminds me that as long as we exist, there will always be those traits in us that will bond us with one another. And this explains why people will be always able to identify with Rocky, no matter what experiment with social engineering will try to transform who we really are. Because from the beginning of humankind, we have been who we are, and we will continue to be who we are: imperfect, flawed human beings fighting against the odds, losing and winning, crying and laughing, recoiling and reaching out. We will never completely satisfy our insatiable spiritual hunger, until we touch the surface of the divine. And that reality speaks far more volumes than the cannibalistic and self-mutilating voice of the socialist dream. Rocky Balboa, with his courage and humanity, has reminded us of that powerful truth for 25 years.
Thank you Sylvester Stallone.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Well, it’s now been 35 years since Rocky overcame all odds to almost become World Champion.. A great story here.. written 10 years ago.
Compromise on Pledge of Allegiance in Oregon Town Has Some Seeing Red
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com
By Dan Springer, Fox News
An Oregon town’s City Council voted down a proposal to say the Pledge of Allegiance before every council meeting, but later passed a compromise that seemed to make no one happy.
It was supposed to be simple, but Councilman Mike Clark soon found out when you’re dealing with God and country, nothing in Eugene is easy.
Clark says all he wanted to do was unite the council and show his more conservative constituents that in this city where diversity is celebrated, their more traditional values also are important.
“It’s a little ironic to see those who have championed the idea of tolerance be less tolerant on this question,” Clark Said. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the Pledge of Allegiance divisive. “If there’s one thing the flag stands for,” Piercy says, “it’s that people don’t have to be compelled to say the Pledge of Allegiance or anything else.”
Under Clark’s proposal, saying the pledge would be voluntary not only for the public at the meetings, but the council members themselves.
Councilman George Brown voted against the compromise, saying the Pledge of Allegiance had no place at City Hall. “People can say it in their front yard or backyard,” Brown says. “It really doesn’t help move the city business forward. It does not unite us.”
Another pledge opponent, Councilwoman Betty Taylor compared saying the Pledge of Allegiance to reading from “The Communist Manifesto.”
Moscow on the Willamette.. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. If this doesn’t reflect the Anti American sentiment among “Progressives”, nothing does. Wake up, Patriots.
The United Nations (UN) has found itself entangled in yet another climate scandal. First, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was involved in “Glaciergate,” where it claimed that Himalayan glaciers would melt in 25 years. (I guess the IPCC takes 2012 a little too seriously.) It turned out this claim was based on nothing more than an interview with an Indian scientist in 1999 and confusing the year 2035 with the year 2350. Then there was “Amazongate,” with the IPCC claiming that 40% of the Amazonian rainforest is at risk from climate change. But on closer investigation, this claim was based on the work of two World Wildlife Fund activists. Not only did these authors lack a background in Amazonian forestry, they weren’t even scientists! One analyzes policy in Australia and the other is a freelance writer for The Guardian. And, of course, who can forget Climategate, where thanks to leaked emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia, the public was able to learn about the suppression of dissenting papers on climate change. So much for rigorous peer-review.
Now, like many summer blockbusters, Climategate gets a sequel. Earlier this year, the IPCC made a provocative announcement: by 2050, 77% of the world’s energy needs could come from renewable energy sources. This news was all the more remarkable since renewables only provide 13% of the global energy supply today. Of course, this large increase in green energy could happen only “if backed by the right enabling public policies” (i.e. generous subsidies for wind and solar power).
Here’s where the scandal begins. Last week, Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit discovered that this prediction was based off of research conducted by Sven Teske, the Director of the Renewable Energy Campaign for Greenpeace. In other words, the supposedly impartial IPCC was using a paid employee of Greenpeace to give a fair and balanced analysis of renewable energy.
In addition, this study was just one of 164 different scenarios outlined in the IPCC’s report. Not only was there a severe conflict of interest involved with Teske, but his report was absurdly optimistic. As Babbage at The Economist notes, “the Greenpeace one was chosen for the spotlight because it had the highest renewable penetration; the median penetration in 2050 across all 164 scenarios was just 27%.” That’s a far cry from the 77% figure the IPCC touted.
The scientific process must not be politicized for partisan gain. Yet, there is a double standard when it comes to the green movement and transparent science. This issue would have had a lot more press if Teske worked for ExxonMobil, and not Greenpeace.
By now, environmental activists should know that hyperbole and sensationalistic headlines only undermine their efforts. Indeed, according to a recent Pew Research Poll, fewer Americans believe that climate change is a real threat than they did five years ago. When the IPCC shamelessly promotes Greenpeace agit-prop as “science,” is it any wonder climate skepticism is on the rise?Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
They drained the Kool-Aid container. That’s the only explanation I can think of for this renewable energy fantasy .. or they are simply liars with the curse that all elitists suffer.. narcissism.
Maurice Strong is the environmental George Soros. Most people don’t know who Maurice Strong is. You shouldn’t be one of them.
Glen Beck discussed the Chicago Climate Exchange (where Strong is a board member) about a week ago, and I’ve been waiting for Beck to return to the “Crime Inc.” topic and bring up Strong’s name. Beck did so for a segment on Wednesday. Beck then said to his audience: “You find everything you can on this man.” The “email@example.com” address was listed on the screen. Beck warned that the internet was in the process of being scrubbed.
First, a personal confession. I’m tired. I have a 10-month-old and a 2-year-old. Every day is a long day. My mother-in-law went into the hospital this past week. A firend of mine (in his 50s) passed away unexpectedly. I try my best every day to tell people not to kill Jews. I try my best to tell President Obama to stop spending money this nation doesn’t have. I’m tired. I’m tired that I have to defend the Constitution from the President and from Congress. I have worked all my life to tell the truth of this country’s history, and I’ve become modestly known–though penniless–for my work. This is my second RedState post this morning. I’ll try to tell the story about Maurice Strong, but it will be in more than one part. I’m tired.
SCANDAL? WHAT SCANDAL? WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT MAURICE STRONG? IT WASN’T IN THE PAPERS!
Glenn Beck connected the dots to the “crime of the century” over a week ago, and the MSM was silent. He showed the union leader here, and the union leader there, and the Soros-funded groups over there, and there’s Bill Ayers’ brother over here, and there’s Barack Obama. The press yawned.
This post by Newshounds Beck critic Aunty Em on May 2nd, “The Beck Week That Was;Beck Whines About The Media Ignoring His Expose Comparing Regulation To One World Government And Slavery,” sums up the MSM thinking:
The official transcript doesn’t mention a “Global Government” and “New World Order,” but Beck knows what dog whistle will have his audience baying at the moon when he lays out his new phony-boloney, connect-the-dots, conspiracy between Al Gore, Cap & Trade, Goldman Sachs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and, of course, Socialist President Barack Obama. He was right in his opening, though. Not a single media outlet picked up on the story and he was left whining about it the next morning on his Radio Drama Theatre. Media Matters said other media didn’t report it, quite rightly, “Because it’s delusional and stupid, Glenn.” Simon Maloy wrote a very funny article, well worth reading for yourselves.
What Beck fails to take into account, whenever he whines about one of his exposés being ignored, is how rapacious the media is at uncovering real news. Try and stop it. However, Beck would rather have the Fourth Estate connecting the dots between non-related coincidences and natural business connections, as he does, to find a conspiracy behind every bush. The simple fact is this: Even the most passionate Obama-loving reporter would chase a real story that could bring down the Obama administration, because journalists covet Pulitzer Prizes more than administration gratitude. If there were any reality to a single one of ‘Jimmy Olsen’ Beck’s Big Scoops, a real reporter would jump on the story faster than he could jump on a chocolate éclair. No, Glenn, the deafening silence you hear is the sound of reporters ignoring nothing at all.
I let Aunty Em have it, even pointing out that she used a fake quote of Samuel Adams. While she immediately replied to someone else to correct the spelling error of a word, she wouldn’t reply to me. I said that the MSM interest doesn’t mean there’s nothing here. I solved the origin of “the Big Apple” and no newspaper in New York City would cover it, even though they daily put a teenage whore named Amy Fisher on their front pages. A guy connected the dots to the SEC and said “I THINK BERNIE MADOFF IS RUNNING A PONZI SCHEME” and the SEC did nothing. The John Edwards scandal was discovered by the National Enquirer.
You expect the MSM to tell you about Maurice Strong and to connect the dots? Who has the time or the resources to look into this? Why not just run photos of Tiger Woods’ 150th mistress?
Plus, Glenn Beck connected the dots. Strike one. Obama is the president, and he’s very powerful. Strike two. If one of the MSM picks up this story and accuses people in power, bad things could happen. If the MSM doesn’t pick it the story, who will take notice of something that isn’t reported?
Beck confessed last night that his producer cried when going over this stuff. It could be dangerous to them. Friends of Obama have been organizing a boycott of Beck’s advertisers for the past year.
“Question with boldness,” my friend.
MAURICE STRONG’S WIKIPEDIA PAGE
To find out about Maurice Strong, go to his Wikipedia page. You’ll notice at the top: “Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.”
A check of the page’s history shows about 30 edits on May 12th alone.
The Maurice Strong Wikipedia page intro is this:
Maurice F. Strong, PC, CC, OM, FRSC (born April 29, 1929) is a Canadian businessman. He is an entrepreneur, environmentalist, and one of the world’s leading proponents of the United Nations’s involvement in world affairs.
Born in Oak Lake, Manitoba, Strong had his start as a petroleum entrepreneur and became president of Power Corporation until 1966. In the early 1970s he was Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and then became the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He returned to Canada to become Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada from 1976 to 1978. He headed Ontario Hydro, one of North Americas largest power utilities, was national President and Chairman of the Extension Committee of the World Alliance of YMCAs, and headed American Water Development Incorporated.
Today Strong lives in the People’s Republic of China, and is President of the Council of the United Nations’s University for Peace. UPEACE is the only university in the UN system able to grant degrees at the masters and doctoral. He is an active honorary professor at Peking University and Honorary Chairman of its Environmental Foundation. He is Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Institute for Research on Security and Sustainability for Northeast Asia.
The short fact about Maurice Strong is that he’s a very rich man. Whether he believes the climate crap he proposes or not, it’s certain that he’ll become wealthier if governments go along with his plans. There’s a certain honesty to that. Like: “Al Gore is making $100 million off of this scam. Joe Lieberman.Lindsey Graham, what’s your excuse?”
What Maurice Strong professes top believe are things that I firmly do not believe. Maurice Strong has worked with the United Nations for a very long time and trusts it to be a leader on Cap & Trade schemes. (I believe that the United Nations is a fraud.) Maurice Strong is a socialist and believes that rich countries should share the wealth. (I don’t believe that it’s the role of any government to redistribute earned income.) Maurice Strong believes that the world is overpopulated, as Malthus predicted, and that a China one-child policy, abortions, wars, sterilization, low sperm counts and such are all good things. (I believe that my wife should have as many babies as she wants.) Maurice Strong believes in a “New World Order,” with global rules with global courts and a global currency. (See my opinions on the United Nations failed experiment when talking about anything “global.” The United States must never surrender its sovereignty.)
Maurice Strong’s views are a direct danger to the United States of America. The only “good” thing about him is that his name is now an obvious red flag to us.
MAURICE STRONG VIDEOS
Glenn Beck has asked for Maurice Strong videos. There are plenty.
I’ve cautioned everyone here before about Jesse Ventura’s conspiracy theories (such as 9-11). There is a nine-minute video, “Maurice Strong at root of Global Warming Scam,” and it’s probably the most accessible summary of the Maurice Strong story. I know it’s Jesse Ventura and Tru TV, but the opening is pasted from other videos and the interview of a Strong associate is OK.
There’s a nine-minute CBC (Canada) documentary, “Maurice Strong’s unprecedented rise to power.” It’s OK, but it doesn’t exactly ask tough questions of its subject.
Definitely check out “Lord Christopher Monckton exposes Climate Change scam and Maurice Strong.” Lord Monckton is the anti-Strong. God bless Monckton! (Also Tru TV, For what that’s worth.)
There is a lengthy, four-part “Alan Watt on Alex Jones Tv 1/4:Who is Maurice Strong?” Skip it. There’s very little here about Maurice Strong. It’s mostly Alex Jones on the usual New World Order stuff–some of which I agree with, some of which I most certainly do not agree with. The visual is just a talking head.
“THE MAURICE STRONG FILE” AT “SOLDIER FOR LIBERTY”
The Maurice Strong File
Posted on May 12, 2010. Filed under: General Info | Tags: Maurice Strong |
Thank God Glenn Beck is finally catching on to this. We have been telling you about it for the better part of a year. Below is some of the info we have on Maurice Strong and you can find much more about him and others targeting our way of life on our sister site Watchdog Central, at the last link. Please tell your friends. We must stop this now, although it may be too late. The more people that know, the better our chances. Thanks.
Maurice Strong, Agenda 21 and more from Lord Moncton
Posted on October 20, 2009.
(Monckton mentions Strong during an interview with Glenn Beck — B.P.)
Maurice Strong – The Interview
Posted on December 16, 2009
(Four videos of a Maurice Strong interview–B.P.)
This includes articles from the Canadian press:
Maurice Strong – Man Behind Agenda 21- Part 1
Posted on October 19, 2009.
The new world devised by Maurice Strong and George Soros
United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order
By Judi McLeod Monday, November 24, 2008http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6485
According to financial experts, the world, as we know it will change dramatically by the year 2012. People, who provided for their families only three years ago, will be desperately searching for food. The story of the economic meltdown of 2008 begins and ends with the United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order. Behind the curtain of this dark chapter in human misery are ogres Maurice Strong and George Soros.
This was written back in October 2009. RedState’s Cold Warrior added some comments:
My Epiphany – It all boils down to this!
Posted on October 20, 2009
As I assembled the Maurice Strong Database, all of a sudden I understood.
I am not a researcher, I am not a journalist, I have a full time job away from here. I am just a citizen, like you. None the less, I think I have it figured out.
Everything that is wrong with this country – all of it boils down to the United Nations and Agenda 21 but more importantly, it boils down to one man – Maurice Strong
Cap and trade
*Strong in an interview at WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM – WASHINGTON, D.C. on APRIL 4, 2001 was asked about biodiversity and smart growth helping with energy issues: Absolutely and also paradox, we are going to see higher energy prices, and higher energy prices will provide a very strong incentive for people to use energy more efficiently [JV: like giving a dog a bone]. Not that one should advocate high prices, but high prices are not all bad, they will permit people, and even [encourage] people to use energy more efficiently.
*Why am I not surprised to see his name involved with cap-and-trade? Let’s see, he was involved in Oil for Food, and cash funneled via U.N. agencies to North Korea, and under Kofi Annan received a million dollar check bankrolled by Saddam Hussein’s U.N.-sanctioned regime that was delivered by Tongsun Park—Maurice Strong embodies all that is sinister and shady.
Today he is involved in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the only firm in the U.S. that trades carbon credits, no doubt because he cares about the environment.
This reveals the plots for 2012:
Maurice Strong- Man Behind Agenda 21 – Part 2
Posted on October 20, 2009
The biggest threat to the sovereignty of the United States has to be United Nations Agenda 21. Its tentacles are so interwoven into our lives it is like an aggressive cancer.
This cancer, Agenda 21, also known as Local Agenda 21 or LA-21, is nothing short of an attack on this country. It came to life in 1992 and is spreading across the globe with the help of anyone who happens to buy into the idea of a global threat. Its real purpose is hidden inside a cloaked presentation of environmental sustainability, however, it is about control of your life, your children’s lives, their children’s lives and on into perpetuity.
Maurice Strong is an admitted socialist. His sister was a Marxist. He thinks you and yours have eaten too much, used too much and now must pay. Of course like every elite socialist, that just means you, not him, or his fellow elitist.
Youth must be indoctrinated, of course. Strong has the Earth Scouts:
Maurice Strong and the Indoctrination of Our Youth
Posted on December 16, 2009.
Soldier for Liberty also tells us that Maurice Strong has his hands in our healthcare information as well:
Soldier for Liberty Exclusive: “Roger” This? Maurice Strong connection to Future of US Healthcare
Posted on October 26, 2009
“Roger” is Preventive Medicine’s innovative and proprietary health and lifestyle behavioral change model for the health insurance sector. Information on their website says it was “created by physicians, psychologists, IT gurus, health and lifestyle experts, and e-learning wizards. It boasts it meets people where they are in their everyday lives and engages members through fun, visual and 3-D e-learning modalities to improve optimal health, wellbeing and your bottom line…
“Roger” accomplishes it’s wellness goals by applying a browser based preventive care and lifesyle management approach that concentrates on daily personal encouragement, community support, and goal achievement indicators.”
What’s the icing on top of the cake? Guess who’s on the board of directors for wonderful new friend “Roger”?
Oh, and by the way.. not that this necessarily means anything, the company is located in the same building as The National Institute of Health in Bethesda, MD.
This must be stopped. Maurice Strong’s plans are not in America’s interest. Cap & Trade has now been renamed “The American Power Act.” If passed, America will lose its power.
“Soldier for Liberty” has done yeoman work on Maurice Strong. Glenn Beck should present all of it to his wider audience.
I’m tired. Maybe more later.
Maurice Strong- It’s hilarious to watch the ‘net be scrubbed… The last thing the folks who think like him want is for ordinary people to learn what this fellow’s been up to the past couple of decades.. and who he associates with.
But people who read this blog have been on this scent trail for years.. and more people are learning why they should connect the dots.. to fight back against the dreadful plans these people have for people like us.. people who embrace freedom and the American Way of life and liberty.