UNREAL: 22 Times Obama Admin Claimed Climate Change Greater Threat than Terrorism

Leave a comment

This is from Girls Just wanna Have Guns.

Obama and Gore are spreading the globull warming/climate change bull shit real deep.

Is he delusional or just looking at the bigger picture? Give us your thoughts below.

ISIS has taken responsibility for the horrifying attacks in Paris that have left more than 150 dead and hundreds wounded. French President Francois Hollande is calling for the closure of his country’s borders. President Barack Obama didn’t condemn Islamic radicals for the attacks, but he did call them “an outrageous attempt to terrorize innocent civilians” and “an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share.”

Friday’s deadly attacks thwarted Al Gore’s long-planned Paris webcast and star-studded concert to promote climate change awareness.

“Out of solidarity with the French people and the City of Paris, we have decided to suspend our broadcast of 24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth,” the group said in an online statement.

Coincidentally, in July 2008, Al Gore called climate change a more dangerous threat than terrorism. “I think that the climate crisis is, by far, the most serious threat we have ever faced,” Gore told ABC News.

Below are 23 times Obama or his administration officials claimed climate change a greater threat than radical Islamic terrorism.

In a January 15, 2008 presidential campaign speech on Iraq and Afghanistan, Barack Obama said the “immediate danger” of oil-backed terrorism “is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.”

On January 26, 2009, Obama delivered remarks at the White House on the “dangers” of climate change:

These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe.

In May 2010, the Obama White House released it’s national security strategy, which said, “At home and abroad, we are taking concerted action to confront the dangers posed by climate change and to strengthen our energy security.” The document declared climate change “an urgent and growing threat to our national security.”

On September 6, 2012, during his Democratic National Convention speech, Obama said, “Yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future.

On January 23, 2013, in an address before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry declared climate change among the top threats facing the United States.

February 16, 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry addressed students in Indonesia and said that global warming is now “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.

In a June 2014 interview, Obama said:

When you start seeing how these shifts can displace people—entire countries can be finding themselves unable to feed themselves and the potential incidence of conflict that arises out of that—that gets your attention. There’s a reason why the quadrennial defense review—which the secretary of defense and the Joints Chiefs of Staff work on—identified climate change as one of our most significant national security problems. It’s not just the actual disasters that might arise, it is the accumulating stresses that are placed on a lot of different countries and the possibility of war, conflict, refugees, displacement that arise from a changing climate.

During a September 2014 meeting with foreign ministers, Secretary of State John Kerry called Climate change a threat as urgent as ISIS.

On September 24 2014, the Obama USDA launched its Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture. In a memo posted by Secretary of State John Kerry, among other Obama administration officials, read,“From India to the United States, climate change poses drastic risks to every facet of our lives.”




This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Every time Al Gore and now Barack Obama opens their mouths about GloBull Warming we nearly freeze to death.

The nation gets record cold temperatures and record snowfall.

I wish they both would just shut up as I cannot handle the cold as well as in the past.


On Monday, President Barack Obama announced the release of a global warming “toolkit,” one day before all 50 U.S. states fell below freezing temperatures.

The White House says its “resilience toolkit” is an extension of Obama’s “Climate Action Plan” released last year which created the “State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience” to help battle pollution and “record heat waves.”

According to Reuters, “After announcing two major global initiatives on climate change last week, the Obama administration pivoted on Monday to American towns and cities to help them adapt to the impacts of global warming.”

A recent Gallup poll finds that just two percent of Americans rate “environment/pollution” as a top concern.

GOP Candidate Releases Video Calling Global Warming ‘The Greatest Deception In The History Of Mankind’


This is from The Daily Caller.

This is a woman after my own heart.

Lenar Whitney’s race will be interesting to watch.

In a move sure to inflame the left, a Republican congressional candidate in Louisiana is releasing a nearly five-minute long video railing against liberals and calling global warming a “hoax” that might be “the greatest deception in the history of mankind.”

The video comes from candidate Lenar Whitney, who is running as a Republican in the crowded Sixth Congressional District race in the state.

“A spectre is haunting America,” Whitney says in the video. “It is perhaps the greatest deception in the history of mankind. It has been almost 10 years since failed presidential candidate Al Gore put out his propaganda film, ‘The Inconvenient Truth,’ proclaiming that the actions of America’s energy industry are causing a catastrophic rise in the earth’s temperature.”

“But quite inconveniently for Al Gore,” Whitney continued, “and for the rest of the politicians who continue to advance this delusion, any 10-year-old can invalidate their thesis with one of the simplest scientific devices known to man: a thermometer.”

Talking about Gore, Whitney adds: “The earth has done nothing but get colder each year since the film’s release.”


Read more:

Professor Wants Climate Change “Deniers” Thrown in Jail


This is from Town Hall.

Wait I thought liberals are tolerant.

They are only tolerant if you toe their loony leftist line and way of thinking.



An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology has proposed a bold plan to settle the debate on Global Warming. Lawrence Torcello wrote an essay suggesting that scientists who fail to fall in line with global warming alarmists should be charged with criminal negligence, and possibly even be thrown in jail. Nothing screams academic freedom like a little intellectual Fascism. Right?

When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on.

Well, Larry (can we call him Larry?), it might surprise you – an assistant professor of philosophy – to learn that science is not a democratic study. Skepticism, opposition, and deviation from the adopted narrative are more responsible for scientific discovery than blind allegiance to any prevailing theory. And, quite frankly, the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been delegitimized by some of its greatest proponents… Most scientists would agree that it becomes increasingly difficult to believe in a theory that has routinely failed to produce any moderately accurate models or predictions. But, of course it gets better:

With such high stakes, an organized campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.

Laughably, Larry is not talking about East Anglia, Al Gore, or the UN Climate Change Scandal (where a number of scientists were quoted out of context to give the impression of a consensus view on climate change). In fact, while Larry alleges that “deniers” (apparently the word “skeptic” doesn’t have the right amount of stigma attached to it) are engaged in a misinformation campaign, he never once defends the propagandistic efforts of the global-warming-faithful.

Governments, activist groups, well-connected CEOs, and elite billionaire Liberals have pushed trillions of dollars into the propagation of global warming fears. And yet, strangely, this assistant philosophy professor seems incapable unwilling to see the irony of his allegations. But, wait… He soon goes for the jugular:

We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.

Ah… So scientists who dare to question the provably wrong predictions of melted ice caps, winterless years, and raising sea levels should be charged with negligence for “undermining the public’s understanding of scientific consensus”? Well, here’s some scientific consensus for you, Larry:

The world has not seen a measurable increase in temperatures for over 15 years. Arctic ice has increased in mass since 2013. The “Polar Vortex” is part of a broader, and predictable, weather shift that has been happening for thousands of years. “Climate Change” has been occurring, without man-made forces, for every single one of the billions of years this rock has been spinning around the sun.

But, let’s be honest: Larry isn’t really worried about the science (even though I’m sure his studies in philosophy have yielded him great insights into climatology, atmospheric science, and meteorological changes throughout history). He’s worried about opposition to his beliefs. He even acknowledges some of the pushback that his idea might receive:

My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech.

Misguided? The Left’s intolerance, it seems, has no bounds. A student from Harvard recently argued against academic freedom. Not wanting to be outdone, this assistant professor is now suggesting that political opponents (or for that matter, scientists who don’t tow his ideological ideals) be criminally charged. It is almost stunning how easily the Left will adopt the notion of censorship and intellectual fascism to limit their opposition.

For being an assistant professor of philosophy, Torcello seems stunningly married to an egocentric world view. People who disagree with him, in his mind, are not merely “wrong”… They’re crossing the threshold into criminality. This is a point of view that is growing among the Left. Opponents to the President are racist. Opponents of Nancy Pelosi are sexist. Advocates for traditional marriage are bigots. And, apparently, opponents to the theory of anthropogenic global warming are worthy of a little jail time. This doesn’t seem like positions that lend themselves to any degree of philosophical integrity.

If Larry really wants to help fight global warming, he should keep his totalitarian mouth shut… Currently, he’s spewing too much hot air into the atmosphere.

5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn’t Happening

Leave a comment

This is by  John Hawkins @ Town Hall.

Here in my corner of Indiana we have had about 2.5 of Globull warming and about 4-6 inches of ice.

I wish Al Gore and Obama would quit talking about globull warming because I have  come close to freezing to death from the record cold,snow and ice.


How did global warming discussions end up hinging on what’s happening with polar bears, unverifiable predictions of what will happen in a hundred years, and whether people are “climate deniers” or “global warming cultists?” If this is a scientific topic, why aren’t we spending more time discussing the science involved? Why aren’t we talking about the evidence and the actual data involved? Why aren’t we looking at the predictions that were made and seeing if they match up to the results? If this is such an open and shut case, why are so many people who care about science skeptical? Many Americans have long since thought that the best scientific evidence available suggested that man wasn’t causing any sort of global warming. However, now, we can go even further and suggest that the planet isn’t warming at all.

1) There hasn’t been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we’re going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any “global warming” during their lifetimes. That’s right; thetemperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn’t a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it’s true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there’s no actual “global warming?”

2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by “consensus.” In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary “scientific” argument for global warming is that there is a “scientific consensus” that it’s occurring. Setting aside the fact that’s not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn’t), it’s certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren’t causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately,almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.


 Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”


There’s an old saying in programming that goes, “Garbage in, garbage out.” In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren’t reliable — and they’re not — then the long term projections they make are meaningless.

5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we’ve had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral.


 Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years….The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a “tipping point” beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Of course, the highway is still there.


Meanwhile, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. James Hansen of NASA fame predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming.

If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren’t even close to being correct, wouldn’t it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what’s really going on?


Leave a comment

This is from My

I never thought I would live to see a bigger dumbass in

the office of Vice President than Albert Arnold (Ziffel) Gore.

Then along comes the election of 2008 and Slow Joe Biden

becomes Vice President.

Here in my corner of Indiana will starting tonight and ending

sometime Monday get 10-12 inches of Globull warming.

We set a record for cold on Thursday night/Friday morning

of -7 below zero and will be setting more records for cold.

I took the headline from Clash Daily.


SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) – It has been decades since parts of the Midwest experienced a deep freeze like the one expected to arrive Sunday, with potential record-low temperatures heightening fears of frostbite and hypothermia even in a region where residents are accustomed to bundling up.

This “polar vortex,” as one meteorologist calls it, is caused by a counterclockwise-rotating pool of cold, dense air. The frigid air, piled up at the North Pole, will be pushed down to the U.S., funneling it as far south as the Gulf Coast.

Ryan Maue, of Tallahassee, Fla., a meteorologist for Weather Bell, said temperature records will likely be broken during the short yet forceful deep freeze that will begin in many places on Sunday and extend into early next week. That’s thanks to a perfect combination of the jet stream, cold surface temperatures and the polar vortex.

“All the ingredients are there for a near-record or historic cold outbreak,” he said “If you’re under 40 (years old), you’ve not seen this stuff before.”

The temperature predictions are startling: 25 below zero in Fargo, N.D., minus 31 in International Falls, Minn., and 15 below in Indianapolis and Chicago. At those temperatures, exposed skin can get frostbitten in minutes and hypothermia can quickly set in because wind chills could hit 50, 60 or even 70 below zero.

Sunday’s playoff game in Green Bay could be among one of the coldest NFL games ever played. Temperatures at Lambeau Field are expected to be a frigid minus 2 degrees when the Packers and San Francisco 49ers kickoff, and by the fourth quarter it’ll be a bone-chilling minus 7, with wind chills approaching minus 30, according to the National Weather Service. Officials are warning fans to take extra safety measures to stay warm including dressing in layers and sipping warm drinks.

Minnesota called off school for Monday statewide, the first such closing in 17 years, because of projected highs in the minus teens and lows as cold as 30 below. Milwaukee and Madison, Wis., students also won’t be in class Monday. North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple urged superintendents to keep children’s safety in making the decision after the state forecast called for “life threatening wind chills” through Tuesday morning.

And though this cold spell will last just a few days as warmer air comes behind, it likely will freeze over the Great Lakes and other bodies of water, meaning frigid temperatures will likely last the rest of winter, Maue said.

“It raises the chances for future cold,” he said, adding it could include next month’s Super Bowl in New Jersey.

Snow already on the ground and fresh powder expected in some places ahead of the cold air will reduce the sun’s heating effect, so nighttime lows will plummet thanks to strong northwest winds that will deliver the Arctic blast, Maue said. And there’s no warming effect from the Gulf to counteract the cold air, he said.

The cold blast will sweep through parts of New England, where residents will have just dug out from a snowstorm and the frigid temperatures that followed. Parts of the central Midwest could also see up to a foot of snow just as the cold sweeps in pulling temperatures to 10 below zero in the St. Louis area.

Even places accustomed to normally mild to warmer winters will see a plunge in temperatures early next week, including Atlanta where the high is expected to hover in the mid-20s on Tuesday.

“This one happens to be really big and it’s going to dive deep into the continental U.S. And all that cold air is going to come with it,” said Sally Johnson, meteorologist in charge at the National Weather Service in Sioux Falls.

It’s relatively uncommon to have such frigid air blanket so much of the U.S., maybe once a decade or every couple of decades, Maue said. But in the long-run the deep temperature dives are less meaningful for comparison to other storms than daytime highs that are below-zero and long cold spells, he said.

And so far, this winter is proving to be a cold one.

“Right now for the winter we will have had two significant shots of major Arctic air and we’re only through the first week of January. And we had a pretty cold December,” Maue said.

Contact Carson Walker at



Wind chill:


16 Signs That Global Warming Was A Lie

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Outpost.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
– Mark Twain.

Add to that globull warming statistics.

We Have Now Entered A Period Of Global Cooling

Global Warming Was A Lie

Back in 2009, Al Gore boldly declared that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” Well, it turns out that was a lie along with almost everything else that Al Gore has been peddling.

The truth is that the polar ice cap is actually growing. It is about 50 percent larger than it was at this time last year. And as you will read about below, a shocking UN report that was recently leaked shows that the planet has actually not been warming for the past 15 years.

So if you are breathlessly anticipating that “global warming” will soon bring on the apocalypse, you can stop waiting. On the other hand, there is rising concern about what “global cooling” will soon do to the planet as we suffer through the beginning of the coldest winter in decades.

Thanks to an unusually quiet solar cycle and an unusually high number of volcano eruptions, global temperatures have been falling. And if this cold weather persists, that could lead to massive global problems. Periods of very low temperatures throughout history have resulted in mass crop failures and widespread famines. Could that soon happen to us? The following are 16 signs that “global warming” was a lie and that we have now entered a period of global cooling…

1. According to a leaked UN report that absolutely rocked the “global warming” believers, the earth has not gotten any warmer for the past 15 years.

2. The amount of ice covering the Arctic is up by 50 percent compared to this time in 2012.

3. In just one week in late November, a combined total of more than 1000 new cold temperature and snowfall records were set in the United States.

4. In just one week in December, a combined total of more than 2000 new cold temperature and snowfall records were set in the United States.

5. On December 15th, 53 percent of the United States was covered in snow. That was the highest level on this date in 11 years.

6. A snowstorm that spanned more than 1,000 miles slammed into New England on Sunday.

7. Some areas of upstate New York were hit with about six feet of snow a few days ago.

8. Chicago just experienced that coldest temperatures that it has seen in December in nearly 20 years.

9. On December 7th, Eugene, Oregon recorded the lowest temperature that it has seen since December 11th, 1972.

10. A few days ago, three feet of snow closed roads in Jerusalem. It was the worst snow storm in Israel since 1953.

11. Heavy snow also fell on parts of Saudi Arabia. That was considered to be extremely unusual.

12. The recent snowfall in Turkey was so bad that it closed 900 roads.

13. Temperatures have dropped so low that some Syrian war refugees are actually dying from the cold.

14. Cairo, Egypt just had the first snowfall that it has experienced in 100 years.

15. It was so cold in Canada recently that the Arctic Winter Games biathlon trials were forced indoors.

16. According to NASA satellite data, a temperature of minus 135 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded in Antarctica back in July.

So why is all of this happening?

Well, the number one factor affecting our climate is the giant ball of fire called the Sun that our planet revolves around. As I detailed in a previous article, solar activity has dropped to a 100 year low. The following is how a article recently described what we are currently experiencing…

The sun’s current space-weather cycle is the most anemic in 100 years, scientists say.

Our star is now at “solar maximum,” the peak phase of its 11-year activity cycle. But this solar max is weak, and the overall current cycle, known as Solar Cycle 24, conjures up comparisons to the famously feeble Solar Cycle 14 in the early 1900s, researchers said.

“None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle. So we will learn something,” Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University told reporters here today (Dec. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

Another factor that is causing all of this cold weather is a dramatic rise in volcanic activity. Throughout human history, volcanic eruptions have produced some of the coldest winters ever recorded, and in 2013 we have witnessed a record number of volcanic eruptions. Something appears to be happening to the crust of the earth, and that is one of the reasons why I included the future eruption of Mt. Rainier in my new novel. The mainstream media does not talk about this much, but right now we are seeing a stunning rise in volcanic activity all over the planet.

The truth is that volcanoes can influence our climate far more than normal human activity ever possibly could. When a tremendous amount of volcanic debris gets ejected into the atmosphere, it can have a huge impact on global temperatures and the consequences can be quite dramatic. The following historic examples come from Wikipedia

The effects of volcanic eruptions on recent winters are modest in scale, but historically have been significant.

Most recently, the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, a stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.

In 1883, the explosion of Krakatoa (Krakatau) created volcanic winter-like conditions. The four years following the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887-1888 included powerful blizzards. Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.

The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, a stratovolcano in Indonesia, occasioned mid-summer frosts in New York State and June snowfalls in New England and Newfoundland and Labrador in what came to be known as the “Year Without a Summer” of 1816.

A paper written by Benjamin Franklin in 1783 blamed the unusually cool summer of 1783 on volcanic dust coming from Iceland, where the eruption of Laki volcano had released enormous amounts of sulfur dioxide, resulting in the death of much of the island’s livestock and a catastrophic famine which killed a quarter of the Icelandic population. Northern hemisphere temperatures dropped by about 1 °C in the year following the Laki eruption.

In 1600, the Huaynaputina in Peru erupted. Tree ring studies show that 1601 was cold. Russia had its worst famine in 1601-1603. From 1600 to 1602, SwitzerlandLatvia and Estonia had exceptionally cold winters. The wine harvest was late in 1601 in France, and in Peru and Germany, wine production collapsed. Peach trees bloomed late in China, and Lake Suwa in Japan froze early.

So are we now heading for a similar period of time?

Will lower temperatures lead to mass crop failures and widespread global famine?

EXACTLY FIVE YEARS AGO: Al Gore Predicted the North Pole Will Be Ice Free in 5 Years

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

Toad Gore has been singing this same song since 2007.

He still embarrasses himself every time he opens his mouth.


FIVE YEARS AGO LAST FRIDAY— Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”


This wasn’t the only time Gore made his ice-free prediction. Gore’s been predicting this since 2007. That means that this year the North Pole should be completely melted by now.

This was in 2009:

Today Cairo had its first snowfall in 100 years.

Read more:


Evidence that Facts Don’t Matter to Liberals

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Listen to any thing  said or done by Liberals you will see

facts do not matter.

The Liberals do not want facts to get in the way of their agenda.

Have you noticed how the debate over ObamaCare has shifted? First, it was the lie that Obama told about keeping our insurance policies and doctors. This lie was told to get ObamaCare passed. It was admitted to be a lie by the media – at first.

Then liberals figured out that accusing the President of lying was not a good thing for their careers. So he didn’t really lie; he oversold the program. He should have been more precise, but we can’t say he actually lied, certainly not on purpose. President Obama would never intentionally lie to the American people.

Now we’re being told that it’s a good thing that you and I may lose our original policies because what the government is forcing us to do – even though it costs more and may be what we don’t want – is really a better insurance policy.

This new narrative is designed to cover up the falsehood of the first and second narratives. This is the way liberals work, and it’s not just in politics.

Al Gore pushed Global Warming until Global Warming couldn’t be supported empirically, so the designation shifted to “Climate Change.” Any change in weather patterns can now be attributed to human action. Anything we do can now be said to contribute to “Climate Change” – even breathing and cow burping.

Even with all the disputed empirical evidence, President Obama is moving forward:

“President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

He has to issue an illegal and unconstitutional Executive Order because he can’t get the votes. Ideology trumps the facts.
Conservatives live under the false impression that objective truth matters. If you just lay out the facts, people will ascent to the facts and change their views. This is not how the world works, and it’s not the way people think, especially those who have something to gain from holding on to falsehoods.

Sylvester Petro was a long-time student of the way liberals think and act. He wrote the following in his book The Kingsport Strike:

“Beware of the man who tells you that he will explain — fully explain — any complex human action or event by resort[ing] to ‘coldly objective,’ ‘empirically verifiable,’ ‘statistical data.’ He is deceiving himself, and perhaps seeking to deceive you. For in the first place we do not all see the same event in exactly the same way, let alone interpret it the same way — not even events which do not involve the complicating factor of human purpose.”[1]

Don’t ever think that in a debate with a liberal that putting the facts on the table is going to change a liberal lie. There’s too much to lose when a liberal has to admit he’s been wrong about the facts. Entire political programs are on the line.

Certainly some people change after being confronted with the facts. Ronald Reagan is a good example.

But for the most part, facts only get in the way of paradigm-laden worldviews. Even after decades of failed social policies where multiple trillions of dollars have been spent, liberals continue to push these and additional programs.

Cuba is an object lesson in failed economic principles, but these failures have not stopped liberals from praising the island nation even though Castro has laws to prevent freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, and freedom of commerce. But Cuba has universal healthcare. I was watching a documentary on Cuba and its description of the objective squalor and unsanitary conditions in parts of the island when the narrator said, “It sure is a good thing the Cuba has a national healthcare system.”

Liberals don’t want to be be confused by the facts because facts are not necessary when implementing liberal policies and programs.


Unveiled: Gun ban extremists’ secret playbook: Part 2

Leave a comment

This is from The Buckeye Firearms Association. 

The gun grabbers are definitely changing their vocabulary.

They are wanting to do what Eric Holder suggested to brainwash

people against guns.

Gun owners can’t allow the gun grabbers to change the language

to influence the low information voters and population.

Use this link to view part one.


A friend sent a very interesting document to me recently – one that is making its rounds through the gun rights community after having been leaked online.

Entitled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” it is an 80-page playbook designed to help anti-gun rights extremists learn why they continue to get beat, and how to change their message so as to fool the general public into thinking their mainstream views are actually supported by these anti-gun rights extremist groups.

“Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” is based on a 2011 study conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, and was prepared by three Washington D.C.-based political consultants – Frank O’Brien of OMP, a direct marketing firm whose client list includes leftist organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Resources Defense Council, John Neffinger and Matthew Hut of KNP Communications, and Al Quinlan of the aforementioned Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, whose client list is a virtual who’s who of anti-gun politicians including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Rahm Emanuel, and Gabrielle Giffords, as well as anti-gun rights and leftist groups including Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Joyce Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, National Public Radio and the Sierra Club.

According to the introduction, the playbook was prepared in order to “help organizations and individuals choose effective arguments and language when communicating with the public on behalf of stronger public policies to prevent gun violence.”

In Part 1 of this series, I documented the weakness of what they believe is their three best arguments, their attempts to fool people by using code words to refer to their gun control agenda, their admission that the NRA is a mainstream group with broad public support, and their focus on using emotional scare-tactics, rather than facts, as a means of changing public opinion.

There is more – far more.

Exploiting active killer attacks

The playbook devotes an entire chapter to exploiting active killer incidents, coldly advocating using “pain and anguish,” “death, injury and heartache” to advance their gun control agenda.


The death, injury and heartache caused by gun violence are devastating – and that’s what makes people care about it and want to do something to end it.



One way to link our arguments to an event without being trapped by shifting circumstances is to ask questions – ones that point to approaches and policies that we favor, but that resonate with special emotional power at the time of a high-profile shooting.

I pray that the chilling way in which these gun control extremists discuss using “pain and anguish,” “death, injury and heartache” and that “special emotional power at the time of a high-profile shooting” disturbs everyone reading this as much as it does me.

We have long-observed on this website that, every time a mentally-ill person attacks unarmed victims in another gun free zone, these extremists run to the microphone to dance in the blood, suggesting “solutions” before even knowing the circumstances of the incident.

Now we know they’re just following the playbook:


There can be a tendency to adopt a quiet “wait and see” attitude when a high-profile gun violence incident happens. The truth is, the most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak. While we always want to be respectful of the situation, a self-imposed period of silence is never necessary.



We shouldn’t assume the facts.

But, we also shouldn’t argue ourselves into inaction while we await clarity about details.

The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time. (“While we don’t know the specifics of this tragedy, we know far too many people are killed by weak gun laws in this country.”)

Of course, once a fact is clearly established, it makes sense to rely on it to advance your case.

Even when the established facts don’t support their case, of course they just continue to advance the notion that their gun control initiatives should be passed anyways.

It bears noting that the playbook also makes special note of the NRA’s common practice of remaining silent in the days after these types of attacks. The NRA’s stated reason for this silence is to give respect to the grieving families and to have all the facts before commenting. But the authors of the playbook see this as the NRA giving them a wide open door:


The NRA’s communications stance during high-profile gun violence incidents is easy to describe: They go silent.

That’s because they know they have nothing to gain from being dragged into a conversation where both the facts and the emotional energy work against them.

We should freely and openly challenge their silent treatment approach.

“It’s no accident that, at times like this, the NRA disappears into the woodwork. That’s because they know that their reckless agenda is indefensible especially in the face of this kind of tragedy. That’s why they’ve gone into hiding.”

A number of years ago, Buckeye Firearms Association leaders recognized that “going silent” was synonymous with giving these extremists the floor after every one of these terrible attacks, and we decided “no more.” We adopted a policy of responding when the situation warranted. We will not sit by and let these extremists follow the playbook for days or weeks on end with no response, and I believe it is time the NRA adopt the same policy.

Stressing emotional arguments over fact-based ones is repeatedly stressed throughout the chapter advising the exploitation of active killer attacks:


A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence. It opens the eyes and ears of folks who, in more “normal” circumstances, don’t pay much attention to the issue of gun violence prevention.

…[W]when talking to broader audiences, we want to make sure we meet them where they are. That means emphasizing emotion over policy prescriptions…



There is often a compelling case to be made for immediate action, pivoting from the emotion of a high-profile incident to calls for legislative action or specific policy changes. Those who seek to make that pivot have to be careful not to drain the emotional power out of the moment.

An emotionally-driven conversation about what can be done to prevent incidents such as the one at hand is engaging. A dry conversation about legislative process and policy is far less engaging.

The playbook also offers advice that anti-gun rights extremist groups followed in the wake of the school shooting in Chardon, Ohio:


In terms of building support, our goal at moments such as this should be to make a connection with someone that will be sustainable after the individual incident fades from memory. Among other things, that means framing our calls to action more broadly than a response to the individual situation at hand.

If we convince someone to act quickly in response to what has happened, we need to move just as quickly to broaden the conversation and pivot to a longer-term commitment to ending gun violence.

Regular readers of this website will recall how Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (OCAGV), Center for American Progress (CAP), Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), and ProgressOhio created to gather contacts for future campaigns – but advertised the site merely as a way to share kind thoughts for victims of the shooting.

Speaking of victims, the playbook recommends “speak[ing] in a victim’s voice,” noting:

Many of the most active advocates and voices in the gun violence prevention movement are people who have personally lived through a life-changing gun violence experience. That painful reality gives such spokespeople special moral authority.

This page from the playbook was carried out this week exactly why we saw the sister of a victim from the Sandy Hook Elementary attack in Ohio this week as part of Mayor Bloomberg’s “No More Names” bus tour. How cold and calloused does one have to be to openly advise that anti-gun rights extremists use victims in this way, just to gain what they perceive as “special moral authority?”

Finally, the chapter offers advice on how to respond if they are called on the fact that they are politicizing a tragedy:


The worst thing to do in a situation like this is to apologize or disclaim an unworthy motivation. (“The last thing I want to do is politicize this situation” . . . “I’m not trying to take anyone’s gun away” . . . “I know this is a time for mourning and reflection, but”)

Your audience can’t be comfortable with what you’re saying if you signal your own discomfort.

Exploiting racial tension

According to the authors, “the clearest divide in the research is between white and nonwhite respondents.” Non-white respondents were much more likely to be susceptible to their anti-gun rights message than whites.

• A majority of non-white audiences report being or personally knowing someone who was a victim of gun violence. (39% for white and 51% for non-white respondents.)
• Non-white audiences are more than twice as likely to say they are likely to take action on reducing gun violence. (20% for white and 48% for non-white respondents.)
• Support for making gun laws stronger is substantially higher among non-white audiences. (44% for white and 71% for non-white respondents.)
• Non-whites are more likely to consider the NRA extreme. (32% for white and 45% for nonwhite respondents.)

The playbook even encourages readers to profile a person before engaging them on the subject. When talking to a minority…

Be alert that it is more likely than not you are talking to someone who has personal experience with gun violence.

Know that you go into the conversation with a strong presumption that the person not only favors stronger gun laws, but may be interested in acting against gun violence.

With those stereotypes in mind, then, what better way to push for their gun control agenda than to combine it with a fight over race?

Indeed, after reading the playbook, the media and gun ban extremists’ behavior over the past two years involving Florida resident George Zimmerman’s self-defense case are much more understandable.

The playbook contains an entire chapter devoted to Stand Your Ground laws. (While expressing a desire to rebrand SYG as “Shoot First” or “Kill at Will” laws, the authors acknowledge that SYG has gained broad usage and thus advise “we may need to use it as a reference point. But, we should quickly shift to language that positions our argument more persuasively.”)

The trouble for these gun ban extremists is that these laws actually make sense to the mainstream when they are accurately explained as establishing the self-defense standard that no person should have to overcome some legal “duty to retreat” when they are attacked. Indeed, as the playbook notes:

Another phrase that we should avoid whenever possible is “duty to retreat.” It may be an established legal principle, but in the public square, it sounds weak and hard to defend.

So since they’ve lost the battle to rebrand Stand Your Ground, and can’t be honest about what the laws do by mentioning the legal “duty to retreat,” these groups appear to have shifted their tactic to claiming the laws have something to do with race in order to attract people whom their research shows are likely to be a more sympathetic audience, and one more likely to become involved in the fight.

Hiding the anti-gun rights agenda for mainstream audiences

The chapter entitled “COMMUNICATING TO AUDIENCES THAT DISAGREE” might as well have been titled “making President Obama’s talking points work for you.” The authors admit that the desire to protect the Second Amendment rights is a mainstream position:

There are a lot of hostile audiences out there. Some regard any discussion of gun violence prevention as merely a pretext to infringe on their Second Amendment freedoms and/or way of life. Even mainstream audiences may have deep sympathies for these arguments.

As such, they have developed talking points to attempt to fool the mainstream into complacency:

There are a number of things you can do when confronted by an audience that may be unfriendly or even hostile to your arguments.

1. Remember, your goal is not to convince hostile audiences that you are right; your goal is to establish that you are a reasonable person who understands their point of view. Time spent demonstrating that you understand and sympathize with their concerns is time well spent.
2. When fielding a hostile question, always begin your answer by identifying a point (or points) of agreement with your audience. Examples of connecting language might include:
• We all deserve the right to be safe and free.
• For lots of Americans, when they were growing up, their dad had a hunting rifle. There’s a tradition of gun ownership in this country that we can all respect.
• Our Constitution and our laws are what keep us safe and free.
• We can all agree that military-style weapons should not be in the hands of criminals, terrorists, or people who are dangerously mentally ill.
3. Keep in mind the previous guidance about separating NRA members from their officials and lobbyists.
4. Remember that protecting people from gun crime is more appealing to male audiences than preventing gun violence.

Anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to the debate over gun rights in this country since the attack at Sandy Hook (and beyond) will have heard these passive-sounding talking points repeated ad nauseum by everyone from the local gun ban extremist to the President of the United States. Recognize them for what they are – lies designed to fool you into putting your guard down.

The goal line

As I pointed out in Part 1 of this series, the playbook answers the question many have asked as to why the anti-gun rights extremists began floating proposals that would have done nothing to prevent the attack they claimed they were trying to prevent from happened again. In the sick attempt to take advantage of the deaths of little children, the extremists were simply floating up every gun control proposal they knew had tested well in polls – regardless of whether or not it could do a thing to stop someone from carrying out another such attack.

According to the playbook, the main gun control initiatives for which polling indicated people could be fooled into supporting are:

  • “Shoot First” Laws
  • Background Checks
  • “Assault Weapons”

The playbook also offered talking points on how to defend against efforts to pass nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity, and, interestingly, on the Fast & Furious gun-running scandal (apparently since they offer a section on how to fool people into supporting gun control as a means of addressing gun trafficking, they needed to provide a few defenses for the government’s own gun trafficking program).

Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” is a must-read, not only for the grassroots gun rights advocate, but for any consumer of news media. This 80-page playbook should open the eyes of the country to the wool that is being pulled over them.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: