Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama’s Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security

by Michael Savage

  In 2006, Gore presented a global warming disaster scenario in his film, An Inconvenient Truth. With the skill of Freddy Krueger, Al butchered science on the big screen, bludgeoned the truth to a pulp, and scared the hell out of millions of unsuspecting dolts. His “gore-fest” included the release of a book based on the same junk science used in his movie. The Hollywood lapdogs ate it up, handing Al an Academy Award for this so-called documentary—a real piece of fiction if ever there was one.

  His second step? Like a good con artist, Goreleoni invested heavily in a range of companies poised to benefit from the “carbon credits” scam that was sure to rise as mass hysteria mounted over the fate of the planet unless carbon emissions were capped. Responding to the ensuing public outcry over Al’s end-of-the-world-we’re-all-gonna-die-if-we-don’t-act-now fear tactic, several of our not-so-brilliant politicians introduced so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation.

  In short, the “cap” in cap-and-trade is a government-imposed limitation on the carbon emissions (also called greenhouse gases), which a business may legally emit. Each business under this plan would be issued a finite number of “permission slips” or carbon credits. Once they’re gone, they either must buy more credits or suffer heavy fines.

  In theory, this forces companies to find creative ways to pollute less. Less pollution, less impact on the environment and, in turn, less global warming. Or so the argument goes. The “trade” part of cap-and-trade is a government-created market that allows businesses to buy or sell their unused greenhouse gas credits. What’s this got to do with you? More than you can imagine as you’ll see momentarily.

  What you should know is that global warming connivers like Al Gore are not so much saving our planet from the disastrous effects they disingenuously insist a few degrees rise in temperature might bring. Rather, their ultimate goal has everything to do with their thirst to exercise power and accumulate wealth they otherwise could only imagine. But before going into the details, as I write, there’s a new twist emerging in the battle to pass cap-and-trade legislation. It’s a move designed to deceive the public.

  Here’s what the Old York Times reports: Cap-and-trade is dead.

  They cite a number of reasons why this “policy of choice” won’t gain any traction in Congress. The Times points to a weak economy, the meltdown on Wall Street, and a polarizing name, but no mention of the fraud surrounding the junk science used to justify such far-reaching legislation. The Times says, “the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it ‘cap-and-tax’ and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington.” Furthermore, “the sponsors of a Senate climate bill likely to be introduced in April, now that Congress is moving past health care, dare not speak its name.”8 In other words, they’d like you to think that Congress will face far too much opposition to pursue a “cap-and-trade” bill.

  Is that so?

  Didn’t Congress face a mountain of opposition to Obama’s healthcare bill? Didn’t the overwhelming majority of Americans reject socialized medicine? None of that stopped the leftist dictator from Chicago from putting the screws to our healthcare system. I predict you’ll see the same thing with a new version of cap-and-trade.

  What’s more, the global warming eco-extremists aren’t waiting around for Congress to enact cap-and-trade. They are convinced in their own minds that global warming is man-made and, as such, must be stopped by any means possible. Their new strategy? They’re suing a wide range of companies whose carbon emissions or greenhouse gases, they claim, are largely responsible for the problem of global warming. Their angle? They’re using “public nuisance” laws to extract hefty fines from those they think are responsible, on some level, for global warming, and they’re seeking injunctions to reduce or prevent further offenses.

  As of this writing, three such cases have already been filed:

  1. Connecticut v. American Electric Power. Using “public nuisance” tort law, electric power producers are being sued by the global warmers to cap and then reduce their carbon emissions.

  2. Corner v. Murphy Oil. The oil company is being sued for allegedly causing Hurricane Katrina! Those filing the suit even want compensation for the damages they suffered.

  3. Kivalina v. Exxon. Alaska natives are suing oil, power, and coal companies claiming the emission of greenhouse gases threatens their very existence by provoking more global warming.9 That case is pending appeal before the ninth Jerk-it Court of Schlemiels in San Fransicko.

  Proving causation between an oil company’s emissions and a hurricane is as absurd as it gets. It just goes to show how desperate these fools are to send our industries back to the Stone Age. A senior fellow at Chicago’s Heartland Institute think tank evidently agrees with me that these are frivolous lawsuits. “The only public nuisance here,” says James M. Taylor, “is liberal activists seeking to circumvent the democratic process by cherry-picking liberal courts and asking them to impose restrictions on the American people that our elected representatives are wise enough to reject.”10

  Whether there will be a flurry or a blizzard of such lawsuits is yet to be seen. What is clear is that the Obama enviro-Marxists are not suddenly abandoning their quest to seize control of the energy sector just because they encountered some resistance at first. After all, cap-and-trade is central to Obama’s agenda. He made that clear on the campaign trail and he hasn’t given up his push to—in his mind—slow global warming. He’s committed to cutting emissions by 17 percent by 2020.11 Don’t underestimate the devi-ousness of this president or Nancy “The Hammer” Pelosi.

  The Democrats are smart enough to realize their pet initiative has been tarnished as more people view it as “cap-and-TAX.” That’s why they’re regrouping. They’re still looking for ways to accomplish the same massive tax grab via an economic package sporting a new name. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave his comrades clear marching orders to, as the Washington Post reports, “produce a bill as soon as possible to have any chance of passage in 2010” because, according to Reid’s spokesmouth, Reid wants to “bring it up to the floor for a vote.”12

  Make no mistake. They haven’t given up. Not by a long shot.

  Here’s how the Wall Street Journal puts it, “If this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it’s that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead [on cap-and-trade]. They’d be better off acknowledging that the only ‘consensus’ right now is that the world needs to start over on climate ‘science.”13

  No question, the Demoncats have become emboldened by the passage of their socialized healthcare plan. They’re drunk with their own power. As Obama’s press secretary said, “[Obama] goes into these negotiations, and into these legislative battles, with a stronger hand because people understand that he’s going to fight for what he believes in”14 [emphasis added].

  As I demonstrated in chapter one, this president “believes in” a makeover of the country. Which is why I believe he will ignore the will of the people once again and attempt to pass a clean energy bill with striking similarities to cap-and-trade.

  It may have a new name, but it will be the same old game.

  Need proof? Look no further than how Obama tried to grab even more power using the nation’s greatest environmental crisis—the BP Gulf oil spill—to promote his pan-Leninist agenda. On June 15, 2010, in his first televised speech from the Oval Office, Obama blasted “our addiction to fossil fuels” and spoke of a need to “transition away from fossil fuels.” In the spirit of never letting a crisis go to waste, Obama was quick to leverage the disaster in the Gulf to push what will be a disaster for the nation. He said, “Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill.”

  That’s code language for cap-in-trade.

  Obama continued, “Now, there are costs associated with this transition [to clean energy].” Pause there.
Better hold on to your wallet when this man tells you there’s a price to be paid. He’s a tax and spend president of the lowest order, and his taxes are impoverishing the middle class. Obama said, “And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now.” You got that right, Mr. Obama. People are out of work. They’re losing their homes. What’s more, those in the middle class fortunate enough to have a job are already shouldering the cost of two failed bailout schemes. These facts were ignored by this tone deaf president, who droned on: “I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy—because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are fargreater.”15

  As you might expect from a man with no executive leadership experience, Obama advanced ideas not in keeping with the problem at hand (i.e. the oil disaster). Rather, he advanced ideas about “clean energy” and “green jobs” in keeping with what you’d hear in a college faculty lounge filled with limited minds and unlimited tenure. This really isn’t about Obama’s desire to create a “green economy” so that America will never have to face another environmental catastrophe. Far from it.

  Obama won’t rest until he seizes yet another slice of the economy through cap-in-tax.

  The BP oil spill just so happens to be putty in his hands.

  Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

  Much like the Wizard of Oz, who used smoke and mirrors to stay in power and control the people of Oz, a not-so-hidden sinister agenda sits behind the curtain of this fraudulent global warming initiative. Radical environmentalists, through the promotion of cap-and-trade policies and legislation, hope to grab control of yet another significant segment of our economy and funnel untold billions of dollars into the hands of the leftists.

  In the bargain, the government is about to weasel its way into our everyday lives, dictating everything from what kinds of light bulbs we can use to what kind of fuel we can put in our cars. And they’re banking on the fact that you’re too lazy to learn what’s going on.

  What really matters to environmentalists, and those on the left in general, is the promotion of an anti-capitalist agenda, specifically one that says industrial civilization is bad for the environment across the board, in the current instance because it tends to generate significant amounts of the gas carbon dioxide, which ostensibly contributes to the greenhouse effect, which in turn they say is going to lead, possibly within our children’s lifetimes, to massive changes in the earth’s climate that will render many regions of our planet uninhabitable and create unimaginable chaos in our descendants’ lives.

  So goes the fairy tale.

  Al’s original self-serving, fabricated notion of a warming earth crisis has snowballed and is promoted relentlessly by an international organization, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), whose claims are backed by a group known as the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Great Britain. It was revealed through e-mails made public in November, 2009, that the CRU systematically falsified data and generated fraudulent computer models to support their pro-global warming agenda.

  Writing for New American, Rebecca Terrell and Ed Hiserodt discuss the role of climatologist Professor Phillip D. Jones of the University of East Anglia, who was among the “scientists” contributing to the now discredited IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4). Jones refused to produce the raw data on which his projections were based when he was requested to do so, and his e-mails are among the most damning of those released.

  In them, he whiningly requested that several of his colleagues “delete any emails you may have had … re AR4.” He promised to do likewise. Jones was also a leader in trying to get peer-reviewed articles that disputed the CRU and IPCC claims of global warming barred from publication. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” he wrote in an e-mail to a colleague. “I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”16

  What’s more, Jones, while making his climate analysis, failed to sufficiently factor in the fact that the weather stations he used to record temperature readings on earth were subject to urban heat. One reporter puts it this way: “Stations that used to be rural are now in cities. And because it is always warmer in cities than outside, the temperatures measured at these stations are bound to rise.”17 If Jones didn’t get something as basic as that right, what’s to say his approach to scientific discovery in other areas of this issue was not equally flawed?

  Are you starting to get the picture?

  This isn’t science. It’s an outright fraud.

  Which explains why the majority Germans who, in the past, were ardent supporters of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), are now overwhelming saying, Auf Wiedersehn, to this myth. In April, 2010, a leading German newspaper assembled one of the most comprehensive and damning indictments of AGW. The paper quotes Reinhard Hüttl, one of Germany’s leading scientists, who is clearly unhappy about the blind eye some in the scientific community exhibit—as Jones has done—in the face of contrary evidence to pet theories. Hüttl said, “Scientists should never be as wedded to their theories that they are no longer capable of refuting them in the light of new findings.” Hüttl adds, “scientific research is all about results, not beliefs. Unfortunately, there are more and more scientists who want to be politicians.”18

  The evidence of this scam grows with each passing day.

  When challenged about his raw data and the lack of accurate record-keeping practices, the discredited co-conspirator of Climategate, Professor Jones, made an astonishing confession: there hasn’t been any “statistically significant” global warming for fifteen years!19 Talk about an earth-shattering admission. Of course, you probably didn’t hear that in the news since only a handful of media outlets reported it.20

  These revelations created the perfect storm for global warmers, and an embarrassed Al Gore had to swing into damage control mode. Utilizing mental gymnastics worthy of a North Korean peace prize recipient, he responded to the groundswell of critics with an editorial in the Old York Times. Gore wrote, “I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovering of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing … What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.”21

  What planet is this man living on?

  These “mistakes” are, by the way, the same data and computer models that the U.S. Congress used in order to justify the cap-and-trade legislation. Will the fact that the data and computer models have been revealed as fraudulent halt the global warming movement via cap-and-trade? As Terrell and Hiserodt explain:

  Of course not. Cap-and-trade is about raising taxes and increasing government control over our entire economy. Our socialist politicians in Washington will never stop pushing this issue, even if global-warming alarmism is disproven to the point that Hell really does freeze over. Will widespread and irrefutable knowledge of scientific

  fraud silence the socialist promoters of a new United Nations Climate Change protocol?

  Nonsense. In the name of saving the planet, the UN Copenhagen Treaty they intend to impose on the world would help to shackle it. Specifically, their “green” agenda would impose international controls, diminish the industrial might and living standards of developed nations, and transfer wealth from rich countries to poorer ones in an emerging world government. Internationalists and socialists will not back away from their long-sought-after global designs simply because the “science” supporting runaway global warming is shown to be flawed.22

  Speaking of the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, leave it to Doc Savage to say what nobody else has said. I want you to look at those who attended this sham. Let’s start with one of the world’s worst dictators, Robert Gabriel Mu
gabe, president of Zimbabwe, who has destroyed his nation. Why am I not surprised that Mugabe is in favor of climate control legislation? Then there’s Hugo Chávez, the socialist dictator of Venezuela, who supports climate control legislation.

  To me, that says it all.

  What more do you need to know?

  These dictators favor such a bill because it will take money from your pocket and give it to them so they can continue to oppress their own people. And yet the dunces of the West attending the Copenhagen conference were all dancing to their tune—with President Obama leading the chorus line. Obama, who probably never owned a microscope, told his fellow dictators, “We would not be here unless you, like me, were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction. It is science.”23

  If I had been in the room, I would have said, “Mr. Obama, I know a little bit more about science than you do. You’re a politician. Science is based upon facts, not politics. To suggest that all scientists agree is unto itself a lie. When it comes to climate science, there’s a great debate raging within the scientific community. This thing is far from settled.” Has Obama forgotten that, as recently as 1974, TIME magazine warned another Ice Age was in the works?

  Look at what TIME reported:

  … when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere … the ice and snow cover [in the Northern Hemisphere] had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round 24 [emphasis added].