Democrats Censor Climate Skeptics in Congress

Last year you could go to the American Socialist Party site and click the link which brought you to the members of Congress who were members (how they could justify swearing to uphold the Constitution while the same time swearing allegiance to socialist principles boggles my mind!!). The link no longer exists. So, you won't be able to see Markey's name along with Larson, DiLauro, Waters, Waxman, Frank and Lee - all one step away from throwing our Constitution under the bus. You can still see some names if you go to the Dem. Progressive Caucus - Progressive and Socialists are the same. Both sites demand redistribution of wealth.

other Democrats in and out of Congress curious about what Obama and Pelosi mean when they profess to be the most open governement in our history...or is that asking too much?? Of course if it were not for articles like this and many others exposing how the Democrats hide their agendas, we'd never know...at least most of us, so thank you Jillian. When is it that Americans and world leaders will learn not only to not accept what the President and the Speaker say, but know just the opposite will be the order of the day? How many times can we all hear them say one thing and yet do just the opposite? Obama and Pelosi are in exactly the same exact mold...incredible!! And they remain our male and female leaders. That's scary enough but just...

I think that's how it's spelled.
Going to Oslo for an unearned award from a corrupted organization was, apparently, no embarrassment.
Failing to enrich Chicago cronies with Olympics housing was no embarrassment.
Sticking your nose into a local Cambridge fiasco, and making it worse, was no embarrassment.
Sitting in a church where the pastor damned America was no embarrassment.
Working with Ayers and claiming no idea of his history. Helping Acorn and not noticing the whistleblowers actions?
Losing NJ and Virginia after Biden and himself paid several visits, but the loss is of little significance.
Now he is off to a conference on Global warming, calling it something else, with supporting data totally compromised. How...

There is a difference between global warming and man made global warming.

Humans are tiny, insignificant specks on the earth. Volcanoes can affect the climate, outside nuclear obliteration, puny little humans cannot.

Yes, we will have global warming and global cooling over the next thousand years or so ... but there is no concrete evidence of any king that humans have either caused it or could have an affect on it one way or the other.

How many years could everyone in the planet drive a SUV before it surpassed the devastation of the planet caused by the climate change that occurred as a result of one volcanic explosion (Laki) in 1785? Bear in mind that the emissions from Laki were equivalent to a Mount Pinatubo-1991 eruption every three days.

If globull warming causes hurricanes, why have they existed for thousands or millions of years?

If globull warming causes famines, why have they existed for thousands of years?

If globull warming causes droughts, why have they existed for thousands of years?

If globull warming is causing "unprecedented" ice melt in the Arctic, then why did Roald Amundsen write about it in 1903 and ships passed through...

You are right. Climate Change exists. The world is coming to an end and only 10% of the population will survive, if they are not eaten by three-headed green men first. The scientists did not manipulate data even though they admitted doing so in their emails. The scientists did not cheer when a globull warming skeptic died. The scientists did not malign the work and character of skeptics. The scientists did not try to silence the 31,000 scientists, including 9,000 PhDs, who are skeptical. The scientists did not discuss changing the peer review process to prevent skeptics from publishing. The scientists did not review each others work to prevent outside review. The scientists did not throw away raw data, which they have admitted to doing....

The 2nd Amendment applies to the citizens of the United States. Individual states can not "Constitutionally" pass any law that alters or interfers with the Bill of Rights. Recently the Supreme Court ruled a City couldn't either. Refer to their ruling on Washington DC. However many lawyers earn good livings year in and year out because of Liberal Politicians and the the Bills they pass into law. The founding fathers intended the Constitution to be interpreted as they wrote it. They also knew that times and circumstances would change in America, which is the reason for the amendment process. Liberals however will deny this and pass laws circumventing the constitutional process because they would never get the redical amendments passed.

The liberals will not have a liberal testify under oath if they can avoid it. It totally removes the "plausible deniability" of their lies. By their measure, if you tell the lie loud enough and often enough, it becomes undeniable fact.
My teenagers asked me if I completed the book "1984". I had not finished the book, after reading about one third of the book I closed it and put it away. I told them I was living it now and didn't want to read the ending before it occured. It doesn't surprise me that Obama, his entire administration, the liberal leadership in the congress and senate will ignore Climategate because it flies in the face of their agenda to remake America.

science based policy. Out with that nasty religious-based small minded Bush policy on stem cell research.

Ooops! Can't bother with science-based policy when it comes to the power grab behind global warming. Gosh, that might interfere with the statist plans...

As Lord Lawson wrote in his book An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, those concerned about imminent environmental catastrophe — as compared, for example, to the real danger of nuclear terrorism — “need not worry about saving this planet. They are already living on another one. . . . We appear to have entered a new age of unreason. . . . It is from this, above all, that we really need to save the planet.”

* They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

* They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a
“decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

* They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.

* They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning...

And It’s Issues

http://rightsoup.com/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate- and-its-issues/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_ campaign=Feed%3A+RightSoup+%28Right+Soup%29

A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.

* The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited...

of our generation

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbo oker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-sc andal-of-our-generation.html

"Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

"But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

"The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small...

Rick, we may still disagree with regard to interpretation of the Constitution. I follow the intent of the founders completely, as I do with all laws. If the Constitution is in need of change, we can change it, but until then, it is the highest law in our land. There can be only one (takeoff on the Highlander movie - sorry).

The largest issue I have with feds in the last many years is the total bypass of the constraints imposed on them by the Constitution, especially Congress. In fact, there is a set of rules that requires Constitutional justification for any bill leaving a committee. See clause 3(d)(i) of rule XIII: