The Great American Con-Job

31 01 2009
Party hats!

Party hats!

Two days ago I posted about what I thought was a

Norman Lear presents...

Norman Lear presents...


rather dangerous organization known as As of today, I think it’s even more dangerous than I originally thought. Here’s why… I know a lot more about this organization and the reason it was created… So sit back, relax, and watch while I pull this apart with my bare teeth.

When I first wrote about two days ago, (here) I was under the impression that this was just another radical left-wing anti-American organization. The difference, I felt, was that this organization had lots of money, clout and marketing brains behind it. Well, I was partially right. The money is definitely there, and the clout is there, it’s the marketing genius where I went wrong. Because the method used to attract people to their organization is so powerful, I assumed that they had some real brainiacs behind this whole born-again-american thingy. Turns out, it was just a lucky fluke of fate. For us Conservative Americans, an un-lucky fluke! That’s my way of saying… we have our work cut out for us. Please keep reading, I’m just getting started.

Ok, let’s start with the cast of characters. In no particular order, but starting with the Founder of the site, Norman Lear…

Keith Carradine
Jim Dalton
Chad Van Rys
Kevin Moore II
Xiao-Dan Zheng
Matt Thompson
Luke Buckett
Bobby Broom
Keith Sanchez
Erin Dzierwa
Harlem Gospel Choir
All Saints Episcopal
Cantor Patti Linsky
Mu’azzin Benyoucef
David Hernandez
Tarrah Reynolds
Reverend Timothy McDonald III
Reverend Davidson Loehr

This list of names will become valuable shortly. Let’s continue…

 If you go to the Born Again American site, a video loads almost immediately so you have to make sure your speakers are on prior to going to the site. As you listen, you will find yourself getting sucked in by the very easy down-home folksy sound to the song. Anotherwords, you will like it. Then you read the words along with the rolling script that appears on the left and you find yourself nodding in agreement with a few of the lines. You also start to feel the intended patriotic feel as the song and the video mixing that takes place. The next thing that you notice is the not-so-soft under-tones of religiosity also in that mix. The end result of all this is…. you feel really good about the song and you are convinced that it’s your patriotic duty to join this organization because these just have to be such good upstanding American-Christian loving people… right?

Ha! Not so fast pilgrim, time for a reality check.

Ok, I’m going to give these folks some credit here, and well deserved credit at that. The song/video made with real people (not rock stars), Patriotism, and Christianity all thrown in together makes for a powerful presentation. The video is very, very well done! And in my opinion, very effective. Anotherwords, it’s an excellent propaganda piece!

Now, let’s look behind the curtain… Norman Lear is the founder of this organization, which for those in the know, should be enough to get you to run, not walk, away from this as fast as possible (Google “Norman Lear liberal activist”.) Although Mr. Lear has no problem using a two Preachers, a Muslim, a Cantor, and two different Church Choirs to help participate and promote his Organization, he has some funny ideas about religion in America.

If you go to and then click on the video titled “Norman Lear’s Preamble at the Lincoln Memorial”. It’s less than 2 minutes long so take the time now and check it out. In it you will hear him say things like “one day I heard a preacher on TV say that a Supreme Court Justice should be taken off the bench” and he knew he had not joined the Air Force to protect that type of freedom. And he also had problems with a preacher that according to him said that you could not be a good Christian if you voted a particular political affiliation (not exact words, but close enough). According to him, this is why in 1980 he started the “People For The American Way” a very left leaning org. More on these and other Orgs later.

One of the first performers on this video is Keith Carradine, a sometimes actor and songwriter, and full time liberal. Mr. Carradine also seems to be a bit confused about the connection with religion in this video and what he thinks of the Constitution. Here’s a few words from Mr. Carradine from the ‘About Us’ page… “Why I am a Born Again American: When Norman asked me to write “Born Again American” he did so with the suggestion that the song address several timely and timeless social and political issues. He was quite specific about reinforcing what our founders envisioned when they wrote our Constitution and Bill Of Rights; (ergo ” my bible is The Bill Of Rights “). The secular ideals of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine are what we need to remind ourselves of at this critical time in our Nation’s history.”

Mr. Carradine does a fine job of showing his lack of forethought all by himself, so I’m going to let him slide around in his own mud-hole without any more help from me. On to other issues with Born Again American. For instance… what are the odds that Lear stole the name for his Organization from ‘born-again Christians’??? Go figure!?

Oh, by the way, did you know that Norman Lear uses “BornAgainAmerican” to help promote not only “People for the American Way“…  and their blog here.

but also…

Right Wing Watch… where they blame everything wrong in the world on Conservatism, Republicans, and of course… Christianity!

And last but not least…

Young People For YP4… which is an organization to mobilize youth for all matter of activism. YP4 GLTB rights (gay,lesbian,transgendered,bi-sexual). YP4 Environment, YP4 etc, etc, etc. If there is a leftist group out there, then there is a YP4 group to help mold the minds of young people to think like good little Marxists. Just to ice the cake, all 3 of the above mentioned Organizations (Lear connected to all) were instrumental in helping Comrade Obama get elected. And that my dear friends is the kicker…

Norman Lear only started ‘BornAgainAmerican’ after Comrade Obama won the election. Why, you may ask… because he knows that over the next 4 years many more teens will be turning 18 years of age and he wants to make damn sure he has them in his pocket for 2012 so Comrade Obama can be our Comrade-in-Chief for a full 8 years. This is actually a brilliant strategy by Lear, and I suggest that someone on the Conservative side start something similar very, very, soon! 

Let me very clear as I come to an end on this subject… Norman Lear is a Marxist. He uses un-ethical, and even immoral trickery by taking advantage of religion and patriotism as a front to recruit weak-minded people. While at the very same time he is neither religious nor patriotic. For the sake of our country, and for the sake of our youth, warn everyone you know about his anti-American organization.

Thank you and God Bless!


Obama’s Scary Team

31 01 2009

Submitted by GW west coast editor Eowyn. 

Handwriting analysis reveals scary choices for Obama, to say nothing of Obama himself…



Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's signature reveals a very secretive man, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. He needs to be monitored, as he can be manipulative, sneaky, and narrow-minded. But he does not reveal his hand. His signature suggests a man who likes to use information when necessary, with a watchful eye on others.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's signature reveals a very secretive man, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. He needs to be monitored, as he can be manipulative, sneaky, and narrow-minded. But he does not reveal his hand. His signature suggests a man who likes to use information when necessary, with a watchful eye on others.



More scary stuff…

Attorney General Eric Holder's handwriting and signature reveal that he is an introvert, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. Introverts are fearful of emotion and intimacy and live by the motto, "what is in the best interest of me and only me?" Introverts are not compatible with emotionally extroverted people, nor can they readily identify with pain and suffering. They are connivers and manipulators, cold, detached and contemptible toward those with whom they work and associate.

Attorney General Eric Holder's handwriting and signature reveal that he is an introvert, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. Introverts are fearful of emotion and intimacy and live by the motto, "what is in the best interest of me and only me?" Introverts are not compatible with emotionally extroverted people, nor can they readily identify with pain and suffering. They are connivers and manipulators, cold, detached and contemptible toward those with whom they work and associate.


 Click here to view the analysis of some of your favorites like…. Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and others.


Cross posted at


Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Equal Pay Union Gift

31 01 2009

Equal Payunionthug

-By Dan Scott

To hear the AP story of President Obama signing the Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act one would think a new page in civil rights has been turned. However, like all things liberal Democrats foist upon the public these days using their salesmanship it’s the details they gloss over that are particularly problematic.  The AP story was devoid of detail that would allow a reader to consider the facts.

 Here are the details that should raise some red flags in every employer’s mind.   

“Ledbetter was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber’s plant in Gadsden, Ala., from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. For most of those years, she worked as an area manager, a position largely occupied by men. Initially, Ledbetter’s salary was in line with the salaries of men performing similar work.

Over time, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236.

So here is an employee of 19 years who is complaining they didn’t get the same pay as everyone else who was hired after her.  Now lets accept the claim for the moment that she is equally qualified and did similar work.  In 1997 her pay was $3727/month versus the next highest person with $4286, a $559/month (15%) difference.  We aren’t told if the salaries are dependent upon sales volume or if they received merit bonuses.  Nor are we told what Ms. Ledbetter’s salary was in 1979.  Let’s say for the sake of argument Ms. Ledbetter was rewarded with annual raises of 5% a year. Based on her 1997 wage she would have received a $186.35 monthly raise, hold that thought. 

If you worked through the 1980’s and 90’s as I have, one thing that always struck me at that time was the idea you had to leave your current employer in order to get a substantial raise otherwise you would fall behind in pay.  Much was written during this period where wages were rising quite nicely for those who changed employers but wages stagnated for those who accepted the cost of living pay raise by staying with the employer.  I noted many times new hires of that time period started at the “prevailing wage” offered by industry.  That prevailing wage was either the same as the worker of 20 years or higher.  It was not unusual for an employee to increase their salary $5k to $10k just by changing jobs.

Let us further challenge the implied assumption of this legislation of equal pay, since when is anyone’s pay the same as the next person even of the same job classification?  How does one determine they were “paid unfairly” when the market conditions and individual qualifications dictate that pay?  Example, if I get paid $10/hr, then a year later there is high demand for that position so the next person hired is paid $12/hr.  Does that mean when I am given an annual raise of say 5% (50 cents) that I being discriminated against because I am making $10.50/hr not $12/hr ($2 raise – 14%)? Should all the existing employees be given a 14% raise? Or does that depend upon my sex?  You see the problem.

Ms. Ledbetter’s while rightly being upset with her employer for not appreciating her financially made the fatal mistake of that time period – complacency with her career.  She neglected her career and thus blamed her employer for her failure to be responsible for her own financial well being.  It matters not how long you work for any employer, the wage you started at is only raised incrementally based upon your current pay unless there is a significant promotion. She had none. Market demand for your particular job changes from year to year, some years there is high demand for your job and when this happens anyone being hired during a high demand period will get higher pay.  It shouldn’t surprise anyone that males switch jobs more than females because they are risk takers and as a result they reap the rewards of higher pay for their risk.

Would the effect of this law basically mean for an employer that they would be forced to give all existing employees the same pay (a raise) as the new hire at a time of high market demand? Conversely, if the market was down, would that mean the new hire would have to be paid the same as all the other regardless of their ability and work ethic?  Now if I were an employer in this litigious environment, I would think very hard about taking on any new employees. To do so would put me in a situation of gambling whether or not I will be sued anytime I hire, on top of having to carefully calculate the cost of labor for the entire workforce anytime I attempt to fill an empty job slot to maintain pay parity.  It almost sounds like de facto union rules where everyone’s pay is determined by the contract, and we know by experience this rewards those who do the least and penalizes those who are conscientious. The whole idea of merit pay ceases to exist under those circumstances.  We have no idea if Ms. Ledbetter was a barn-burner for the company nor if she did just enough not to get fired (we all have seen this type).

This means the unions could pitch the idea to employers that if they unionized all the employees they would be essentially exempt from this law.  What a protection racket!  So what we really have here is a union promotion law under the guise of employee grievance.  The law is also a trial lawyer’s dream of grievance Xanadu sure to open untold lawsuits filling their coffers.  It seems the Democrats have created a lawyer’s bailout package and as usual at our expense.  What President Obama signed into law was essentially an employer hiring freeze.  Thanks a lot, like we really needed more unemployment.

-Dan Scott


Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Big Trouble Ahead

30 01 2009


I will not waste time or words, we as a country, are big-troublein BIG trouble!

I’m going to start this by asking a “What if” question…

What if, the left had started a brand new organization that really has it’s act together?

What if, this organization has been well thought out and well financed, from almost every angle possible?

What if, this organization was so good that it will use any means of deceit to make people believe that they are a patriotic organization?

What if, this organization will go so far as to use Religion to promote their Marxist agenda?

Would you be willing to join this organization so you, and other Conservatives, can have an effect on this organization? 

Please think hard about this last question, then respond in the ‘Comments’ section of this post.

If you will stick with this post for the next few days, I promise all will be clear.

UPDATE 1/31/09: Music plays as soon as you go to the link, so have your speakers ready.

 The left has thrown down a mighty gauntlet, one that we must crush, or forever be under the suppressive rule of Marxism!


May God help us in the struggle before us.


P.S.  Please pass on to other Conservatives.

You Can Help!

29 01 2009

Yes… you can!american-flag-2a_edited2

Here’s the deal…. Each of you can help the youth of this country and it won’t cost you a dime. As we all well know, the leftist University Professors, and even High School instructors have been feeding our kids total B.S. when it comes to ideological differences in politics as they relate to our country’s history. Another-words, they have been lying like hell to our kids, and our kids are falling for it.

The latest example are all the Che Guevera T-shirts you see young people wearing nowadays. Most kids that wear those shirts think it’s cool to wear them, although most have no clue as to who he was. The ones that think they know him and wear his shirt, have been taught by their teachers that Che was a great revolutionary who cared for the peasants, and the children, and stuffed Teddy Bears, and Lemon Gumdrops, and rivers of Chocolate, yada, yada, yada…

Ok, here’s where you come in. You and I know that the above Che is complete leftist crap. And we know our kids are falling for the leftist crap. So I want to recruit everyone to help our youth learn the truth about Che. I recently posted a piece on Che called… “University Approved History Of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara”. I chose that particular title for a reason. Although the piece was titled “Who was the real Che”? I chose that title because it will help to get better placement on the internet search engines. That way, when kids do go to learn about Che, they will have a better chance of seeing my link to the true story of Che. You know, the one where Che was nothing more than a murdering scum bag.

Anyway, I also did quite a few other little tricks in the piece to help it get better rankings and I’m confident that I covered all the bases and used most all of the tricks. Buuuuut, there is one area left that has to be worked, and that’s getting the URL of that particular article on the world wide web.

If you can, everytime you go to another site, or send an email to someone you know, please include the link and the title. This will help get them both seen around the net in different places, which in turns helps get the article an even better search engine ranking.

So, if you want to help spread the truth to our kids, use the following Title and URL…..

“University Approved History Of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara”

Heck, if people on your email list are in the fight for our country’s future as we are, then ask them to do the same.

We need to keep finding ways like this to fight back, and we must never give up.

Thanks everyone. I salute you!


P.S.  Thank God most of that I wrote the other day. I have so much NyQuil in me there’s no way I could have done that tonight. Back to my misery.

Bill Ayers Can Go To Hell!

29 01 2009

Submitted by GW west coast editor Eowyn. 

This is the type of story I can really get behind. Before, during, 0_billayerssm1and after the election, we were able to post what little was known about the Obama – Ayers friendship. Even if their acquaintance is all innocent like they want us to believe, it’s still a fact that Bill Ayers was/is a terrorist.

Anyway, it looks as if this latest joke of an election, has stirred people’s souls. And I say… IT’S ABOUT DAMN TIME!

Please check out the video incident after reading the short article. Praise God, Americans may finally waking up to the evil that pretends to have our countries best interest at heart.

On a more personal note… I don’t believe anything that comes out of an unrepentant terrorist’s lying mouth.

Watch video here

Raucous protest greets William Ayers at Moraga speaking engagement
By Paul Thissen
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 01/28/2009 08:26:45 PM PST
Updated: 01/29/2009 05:40:49 AM PST

The shouts of “Shame on you!” resounded across the small Saint Mary’s College campus Wednesday night, where under the glare of television lights, a few hundred sign-carrying, flag-waving protesters gathered around a megaphone to object to an appearance by 1960s anti-war militant William Ayers.

Most of the protest and its speeches took place before Ayers spoke, but even as he took the stage inside the college’s Soda Center, protesters outside crowded toward the doors and shouted, “Cop killer!”

Ayers has never been convicted of killing anyone.

Many who couldn’t get inside the center hung around the entrance. At least one man had to be escorted out of the auditorium by campus public safety officials when he walked up to the podium where Ayers was speaking, carrying a book that resembled a Bible, and began shouting profanities.
Ayers was invited to Saint Mary’s as part of the college’s “Against the Grain” speaker series. A former leader of the Weather Underground, he is now a professor of education at University of Illinois-Chicago.

“I am appalled how Bill Ayers is able to come to a Christian-based campus to speak his rhetoric,” said Jerry Converse, of Concord, who carried an American flag. “It’s a free country, but this is the wrong place.”

The crowd roared and chanted, encouraged by speeches by an FBI informant who had infiltrated the Weathermen and by a police officer who had been on the scene of a bombing at a San Francisco police station that killed a sergeant. The officer said the bomb was set by Ayers’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn, a fellow Weather Underground leader.
“He hides behind being an educator,” said Larry Grathwohl, the FBI informant who traveled from Ohio to attend the protest. “He claims he never killed or injured anyone.” At that, the crowd erupted in chats of “Liar! Liar!” Grathwohl said Ayers had instructed him to make a bomb using fence staples to kill police officers, which Ayers has denied.

“Free speech does not give him the right to lie,” Grathwohl said.

The protesters’ chants sometimes competed with students and Ayers’ supporters, who chanted “Saint Mary’s College!” and “SMC!” And a few debates between the two camps escalated to the point of yelling.

“If we don’t speak up, who will?” said Nancy Messer, who came from Half Moon Bay to protest the speech. “We don’t want (the students) corrupted.”


Two stories in a row that make having the Flu a lot more tolerable.




Global Warming_Hoax_Bad_Science_Scam

29 01 2009

h/t to GioWorld member “The Doktor”.

The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman
January 28, 2009

Global Warming confuses citizens

Global Warming confuses citizens

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming,” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”. The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” He added, “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “I think so, but I do not know it for certain”. I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman 1-29-09


Is anyone surprised? Not me!