AFTA NAFTA - The Bill Clinton Legacy - Hoodwinking the Public - Protecting the Rich

.

Today President Obama is putting intense pressure on Congress to pass a major new trade treaty and the news media has failed to give it even cursory attention.  It was twenty years ago, the last Democrat President jammed a trade agreement down the throats of American workers and politicians and the negative consequences are still felt today.

It has now been twenty years since Bill Clinton slammed the NAFTA trade bill through congress in 1993, then implemented it in 1994, and we are just beginning to see the House of Cards it was built on and understand the Shroud of Secrecy he constructed to protect the rich.

Do you remember when Bill Clinton and his Vice President Al Gore undertook one of the most savage attempts at character assassination ever staged from the White House during the furious debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)?

The target of this attack was the very person who helped Clinton become president in 1992, Ross Perot.  In that election, Clinton won with just 43% of the vote.  Bush got 37.4% and Perot got 18.9%.  Perot's vote total kept Bush from being re-elected.

Only twice in the entire history of American politics did a third party candidate get more votes than Perot in 1992.  In 1856, Millard Fillmore got 21.5% of the vote, and in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt got 27.3% of the vote, neither won.  In fact, only three times in our history did a president a lower percent of votes than Clinton received and they were John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, and Abraham Lincoln.

I worked as a media advisor to Ross Perot during the NAFTA debates and witnessed firsthand the incredible attempts to discredit Perot.  The Clinton administration used a national debate between Al Gore and Perot on the Larry King show as the showcase using lighting, the chair placement, the camera angles, and every other trick in the book to diminish Perot and undermine his concerns.

Eventually, everything Perot warned could happen did happen and the Clinton-Gore victory in time would be among the most devastating of the Clinton years.  Democrats, the unions, all the minorities, and American manufacturing got sold out by the Clinton promise and to this day have continued to ignore the consequences.

In the end only Clinton and Gore were laughing, all the way to the bank, as both became the richest ex-president and ex-vice president in history, each raking in well over $200 million in personal wealth after gutting the nation's long term economy.

You need not take it from me, look at the analysis by NPR, a Progressive stalwart of the Democratic party, and even the AFL-CIO, whose blind faith in the Democrats has nearly destroyed all the good unions have accomplished.  Listen to their words when it comes to the economic security of America thanks to the Clinton trade initiative.

Once upon a time during the debate over NAFTA Clinton and Gore made many promises, and Perot warned the opposite would happen.  Vilified by the news media and the Clinton administration, Perot told the truth, Clinton and Gore did not, and the American public, are still paying for it.

   

Here are what others had to say about NAFTA.

AFL-CIO America's Unions

What have workers learned from 20 years of NAFTA?

·         It’s a flawed model that promotes the economic interests of a very few and at the expense of workers, consumers, farmers, communities, the environment and even democracy itself.

• While the overall volume of trade within North America due to NAFTA has increased and corporate profits have skyrocketed, wages have remained stagnant in all three countries.
• Productivity has increased, but workers’ share of these gains has decreased steadily, along with unionization rates.
• NAFTA pushed small Mexican farmers off their lands, increasing the flow of desperate undocumented migrants.
• It exacerbated inequality in all three countries.
• And the NAFTA labor side agreement has failed to accomplish its most basic mandate: to ensure compliance with fundamental labor rights and enforcement of national labor laws.

How It Is Destroying The Economy

By Michael Snyder

Global Research, 17 August 2014

The Economic Collapse 14 August 2014

NAFTA Is 20 Years Old – Here Are 20 Facts That Show

Back in the early 1990s, the North American Free Trade Agreement was one of the hottest political issues in the country.  When he was running for president in 1992, Bill Clinton promised that NAFTA would result in an increase in the number of high quality jobs for Americans that it would reduce illegal immigration.  Ross Perot warned that just the opposite would happen.  He warned that if NAFTA was implemented there would be a “giant sucking sound” as thousands of businesses and millions of jobs left this country.  Most Americans chose to believe Bill Clinton.  Well, it is 20 years later and it turns out that Perot was right and Clinton was dead wrong.  But now history is repeating itself, and most Americans don’t even realize that it is happening.  As you will read about at the end of this article, Barack Obama has been negotiating a secret trade treaty that is being called “NAFTA on steroids”, and if Congress adopts it we could lose millions more good paying jobs.

It amazes me how the American people can fall for the same lies over and over again.  The lies that serial liar Barack Obama is telling about “free trade” and the globalization of the economy are the same lies that Bill Clinton was telling back in the early 1990s.  The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Paul Craig Roberts…

I remember in the 90′s when former Presidential candidate Ross Perot emphatically stated that NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) would create a giant “sucking sound” of jobs being extracted away from the U.S.  He did not win the election, and NAFTA was instituted on Jan. 1, 1994. Now, 20 years later, we see the result of all the jobs that have been “sucked away” to other countries.

According to an article by the Economic Policy Institute on 1/3/14:

“Clinton and his collaborators promised that the deal would bring “good-paying American jobs,” a rising trade surplus with Mexico, and a dramatic reduction in illegal immigration. Considering that thousands of kids are pouring over the border as we speak, well, how’d that work out for us?

Many Americans like to remember Bill Clinton as a “great president” for some reason.  Well, it turns out that he was completely and totally wrong about NAFTA.  The following are 20 facts that show how NAFTA is destroying the economy…

#1 More than 845,000 American workers have been officially certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance because they lost their jobs due to imports from Mexico or Canada or because their factories were relocated to those nations.

#2 Overall, it is estimated that NAFTA has cost us well over a million jobs.

#3 U.S. manufacturers pay Mexican workers just a little over a dollar an hour to do jobs that American workers used to do.

#4 The number of illegal immigrants living in the United States has more than doubled since the implementation of NAFTA.

#5 In the year before NAFTA, the U.S. had a trade surplus with Mexico and the trade deficit with Canada was only 29.6 billion dollars.  Last year, the U.S. had a combined trade deficit with Mexico and Canada of 177 billion dollars.

#6 It has been estimated that the U.S. economy loses approximately 9,000 jobs for every 1 billion dollars of goods that are imported from overseas.

#7 One professor has estimated that cutting the total U.S. trade deficit in half would create 5 million more jobs in the United States.

#8 Since the auto industry bailout, approximately 70 percent of all GM vehicles have been built outside the United States.  In fact, many of them are now being built in Mexico.

#9 NAFTA hasn’t worked out very well for Mexico either.  Since 1994, the average yearly rate of economic growth in Mexico has been less than one percent.

#10 The exporting of massive amounts of government-subsidized U.S. corn down into Mexico has destroyed more than a million Mexican jobs and has helped fuel the continual rise in the number of illegal immigrants coming north.

#11 Someone making minimum wage in Mexico today can buy 38 percent fewer consumer goods than the day before NAFTA went into effect.

#12 Overall, the United States has lost a total of more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.

#13 Back in the 1980s, more than 20 percent of the jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs.  Today, only about 9 percent of the jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs.

#14 We have fewer Americans working in manufacturing today than we did in 1950 even though our population has more than doubled since then.

#15 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs.  Today, only 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.

#16 As I wrote about recently, one out of every six men in their prime working years (25 to 54) do not have a job at this point.

#17 Because we have shipped millions of jobs overseas, the competition for the jobs that remain has become extremely intense and this has put downward pressure on wages.  Right now, half the country makes $27,520 a year or less from their jobs.

#18 When adults cannot get decent jobs, it is often children that suffer the most.  It is hard to believe, but more than one out of every five children in the United States is living in poverty in 2014.

#19 In 1994, only 27 million Americans were on food stamps.  Today, more than 46 million Americans are on food stamps.

#20 According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades if current trends continue.

NPR Public Citizen February 10, 2014

NAFTA’s Broken Promises 1994-2013:

Outcomes of the North American Free Trade Agreement

Excerpts - see full post at http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

In 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was sold to the American public with grand promises. NAFTA would create tens of thousands of good jobs here. U.S. farmers would export their way to wealth. NAFTA would bring Mexico’s standard of living up, providing new economic opportunities there that would reduce immigration to the United States.

NAFTA was an experiment, establishing a radically new “trade” agreement model. It exploded the boundaries of past trade pacts, which had focused narrowly on cutting tariffs and quotas. In contrast, NAFTA contained chapters that created new privileges and protections for foreign investors; required the three countries to waive domestic procurement preferences, such as Buy American; limited regulation of services, such as trucking and banking; extended medicine patent monopolies and limited food and product safety standards and border inspection.

After nineteen years of NAFTA, we can measure its actual outcomes. The grand promises made by proponents remain unfulfilled. Many outcomes are exactly the opposite of what was promised. Many U.S. firms used the new investor protections to relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of its low wages and weak environmental standards and to attack NAFTA countries’ environmental and health laws in foreign tribunals. Over $340 million in compensation to investors has been extracted from NAFTA governments via these “investor-state” challenges.

The small U.S. trade surplus with Mexico pre-NAFTA turned into a massive new trade deficit. The pre-NAFTA U.S. trade deficit with Canada expanded greatly. Overall, the inflation-adjusted U.S. trade deficit with Canada of $29.1 billion and the $2.5 billion surplus with Mexico in 1993 (the year before NAFTA took effect) turned into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $181 billion by 2012.1 The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimated that the NAFTA deficit had eliminated about one million net American jobs by 2004.2 Meanwhile, U.S. food processors moved to Mexico to take advantage of low wages and food imports soared. U.S beef imports from Mexico and Canada, for example, have risen 130 percent since NAFTA took effect, and today U.S. consumption of “NAFTA” beef tops $1.3 billion annually.3 The export of subsidized U.S. corn did increase, displacing over one million Mexican campesino farmers. Their desperate migration pushed down wages in Mexico’s border maquiladora factory zone and contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the United States.

The U.S. public’s view of NAFTA has intensified from broad opposition to overwhelming opposition to NAFTA-style trade deals. According to a 2012 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll, 53 percent of Americans believe the United States should “do whatever is necessary” to “renegotiate” or “leave” NAFTA, while only 15 percent believe the United States should “continue to be a member of NAFTA.” Rejection of the trade deal is the predominant stance of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.4 NAFTA has drawn the ire of Americans across stunningly diverse demographics. A 2011 National Journal poll showed strong rejection of the status quo trade model from both lower-educated and higher-educated respondents,5 and a 2010 NBC News – Wall Street Journal survey revealed that a majority of upper-income respondents have now joined lower-income respondents in opposing NAFTA-style pacts.6 In addition, a 2008 Zogby poll found majority NAFTA opposition across nearly every surveyed demographic group, including independents, Hispanics, women, Catholics and Southerners.7

U.S. Job Loss, Not Gain

Projections on trade balance, jobs prove wrong. In 1993, Gary Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) projected that NAFTA would lead to a rising U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which would create 170,000 net new jobs in the United States.8 This figure was trumpeted by the Clinton administration and other NAFTA proponents. Hufbauer and Schott based their projection on the observation that when export growth outpaces the growth of imports, more jobs are created by trade than are destroyed by trade.9 Instead of an improved trade balance with Canada and Mexico, however, NAFTA resulted in an explosion of imports from Mexico and Canada that led to huge U.S. trade deficits. According to Hufbauer and Schott’s own methodology, these deficits meant major job loss. Less than two years after NAFTA’s implementation, even before the depth of the NAFTA deficit became evident, Hufbauer recognized that his jobs prediction was incongruent with the facts, telling the Wall Street Journal, “The best figure for the jobs effect of NAFTA is approximately zero…the lesson for me is to stay away from job forecasting.”10

Huge new NAFTA trade deficit emerges. The U.S. trade deficit with Canada of $29.1 billion and the $2.5 billion surplus with Mexico in 1993 (the year before NAFTA took effect) turned into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $181 billion by 2012.11 This represents an increase in the “NAFTA deficit” of 580 percent. These are inflation-adjusted numbers, meaning the difference is not due to inflation, but an increase in the deficit in real terms. The U.S. deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada has worsened considerably more than the U.S. deficit with countries with which we have not signed NAFTA-style deals. Since NAFTA, the average annual growth of the U.S. trade deficit has been 45 percent higher with Mexico and Canada than with countries that are not party to a NAFTA-style trade pact.12 Defenders of NAFTA argue that the NAFTA deficit is really only oil imports. Although oil accounts for a substantial portion of the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, the oil share of the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico actually declined from 77 percent in 1993 to 55 percent in 2012.13

Services and manufacturing export growth slows under NAFTA. A key claim of supporters of NAFTA-style trade pacts is that they create jobs by promoting faster U.S. export growth. By contrast, growth of U.S. exports to countries that are not Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners has exceeded U.S. export growth to countries that are FTA partners by 38 percent over the last decade.14 Manufacturing and services exports in particular grew slower after NAFTA took effect. Since NAFTA’s enactment, U.S. manufacturing exports to Canada and Mexico have grown at less than half the rate seen in the years before NAFTA.15 Even growth in services exports, which were supposed to do especially well under the trade pact given a presumed U.S. comparative advantage in services, dropped precipitously after NAFTA’s implementation. During NAFTA’s first decade, the average growth rate in U.S. services exports fell by 58 percent compared to the decade before NAFTA, and has remained well below the pre-NAFTA rate through the present.16

One million American jobs lost to NAFTA. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the rising trade deficit with Mexico and Canada since NAFTA went into effect eliminated about one million net jobs in the United States by 2004.17 EPI further calculates that the ballooning trade deficit with Mexico alone destroyed about seven hundred thousand net U.S. jobs between NAFTA’s implementation and 2010.18 Moreover, official government data reveals that nearly five million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost overall since NAFTA took effect.19 Obviously, not all of these lost U.S. manufacturing jobs – one out of every four of our manufacturing jobs – is due to NAFTA. The United States entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, China joined WTO in 2000 and the U.S. trade deficit with China soared thereafter. However, at the same time, given the methodology employed, it is also likely that the EPI estimates do not capture the full U.S. job loss associated with NAFTA. Service sector jobs have also been negatively impacted by NAFTA, as closed factories no longer demand services. EPI estimates that one third of the jobs lost due to the rising trade deficit under NAFTA were in non-manufacturing sectors of the economy.20 

. 

Obamaville - September 29 - Latest Poll Results

  .

Thank goodness the politicians in Washington, DC have set a fine example and we are no longer required to tell the truth about anything because otherwise the latest polls would make little sense. However, the die is cast and the truth is lost and we only have about 5 more weeks of nonsense before the elections so here are the latest poll results as I see them.

Obama has slipped so low in the polls 2/3 of all Americans now want him to be Prime Minister of England or Australia.

The leftist liberals are held in such low regard by most Americans that the only TV ratings now recorded for MSNBC and CNN, America's answers to socialist Europe, are the staff of the two networks watching each other.

Of course liberals aren't the only ones having problems as the same poll shows all Republicans and Democrats over 65 and Newt Gingrich no matter what his age need to be sent out to pasture.

At the same time the people also believe the voting age must be raised to 28 years of age since the dumb kids got us into this mess electing Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to lead us out of the darkness and into the night.

Speaking of Nancy Pelosi, 80% of all people refuse to believe she is the leader of the majority party as even Democrats can't be that stupid.

Voting for the person the public most wants to see on Dancing with the Stars next season was tied with over 90% wanting Barack Obama and Sarah Palin for the next two seasons, 2011 and 2012, so both will be too busy to run for president.

In terms of education issues, over 70% of the public says the Obama's could not have attended the exclusive Ivy League schools of Columbia and Harvard for Barack, and Princeton and Harvard for Michelle, and still claim to be plain old American middle class folks.

An astounding 100% of the people want to see only one debate in this fall's election, and a team debate at that. They want the team of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck for the right wing against Arianna Huffington and former VP Al Gore for the socialists with the winners decided by whichever team can figure out what the hell the other team is saying first.

The Supreme Court decision to not allow election ballots to offer the choice, "none of the above", which was rejected by the Supreme Court on grounds the public has no right to so directly influence an election, was opposed by 83% of the public.

67% of the public say VP Joe Biden was inconsistent when he admonished fellow Democrats to stop whining the same day Barack Obama was again whining about the endless curses George Bush left him over the past eight years even though George Bush left office nearly two years ago.

Oh yes, and 91% of the public believes we are much safer and the economy will recover only if congress and the Obama's stay on vacation all the time.
.

Al Gore, King of Global Warming - Where are Obama's Friends When He Needs Them?

.


Al Gore is the latest Obama supporter to turn on him because he is not moving fast enough to line Al's pockets with millions of dollars.

Last spring at the urging of Gore and his Global Warming gang Obama asked Congress for the Cap and Trade legislation to regulate the nation's carbon emissions. It sounded like an interesting environmental move except for the fine print which can be found all too often in the Obama legislative agenda.



Nancy Pelosi immediately got the House to approve the bill but the Senate has taken a much deeper look at the proposal and what has come out may not be the pro-environment bill as advertised. It seems the bill creates yet another new stock exchange, this one for carbon emissions, and makes it profitable for polluting companies to get emission credits from companies that pollute less.

This interesting concept makes it possible to keep polluting as long as the entire industry stays below the total carbon allowed. This also makes a fortune for those who control stock and who run the exchanges and surprise, surprise, Al Gore and Goldman Sachs are at the top of the heap of greed mongers who will financially benefit from the exchange as well as the Obama promotion of environmental causes.



Now Gore has already made over $100 million being the Pied Piper of Global Warming and he is still reeling from all the debate over the falsification of records by global warming scientists to justify the worldwide crisis Gore says we face.

So now he blasts the Obama move toward energy independence and Obama's adoption of the Sarah Palin "drill baby drill" energy plan. It is just another sign that when Obama's supporters don't get what they expect from him they turn on him.



Gore backed an article written by Maggie Fox, CEO of his own environmental group, Alliance for Climate Protection.



Fox wrote that President Obama "must now deliver a comprehensive plan for curbing carbon pollution so we can invest in the clean energy technologies we will need in the 21st century. The longer we spend time discussing whether and where to drill for oil, the longer we delay a more comprehensive solution. What we need now is presidential leadership on comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, which can end our reliance on foreign oil, create jobs and make our country more secure."



Of course Fox didn't say that is if we start drilling for oil and natural gas right now we will move much faster toward energy independence. Nor did she say how much her boss, Al, will make if we invest like she wants. Nor did she mention that Al Gore and his partner from Goldman Sachs already control the stock of most alternative energy companies or that Goldman already has the exchange ready to pump money into someone's pockets.

.

Al Gore Finally Gets Unlikely Ally for Global Warming Crusade - Osama Bin Laden

-




After jet setting around the world for eight years in his private jet, former vice presidential candidate Al Gore finally found a sympathetic voice for his lonely cause to awaken the people to the end of the world. The world's most famous terrorist and architect of 9-11, the legendary and somewhat mythical Osama Bin Laden, joined Gore today in saying America is responsible for global warming.



Certainly Osama has done more than anyone to stop the American economy, the machine behind global warming according to Bin Laden and Gore, than any other person as his attack on New York sent the world into a decade long economic collapse. While Gore was making a hundred million dollars for himself Obama was spending a hundred million to stop America and global warming.



Other than the hundred million there is not much similarity between these odd allies. Bin Laden has been on a survival diet while Gore seems to have been on a Big Mac diet. Gore lives in million dollar mansions and flies in private jets. Bin Laden lives in caves and travels by horseback. Gore has partners on Wall Street like Goldman Sachs while Bin Laden tries to destroy Gore's partners on Wall Street like Goldman Sachs. Gore sells alarmist books while Bin Laden sends out underwear bombers.



Still there are a few similarities. While Gore warns of the end of the world Osama does his best to bring it about. Gore wants global warming to be a war while Osama already made it a war. Both used to be on the government payroll, Gore in Congress and the White House and Osama for the CIA. I suppose that makes them both eligible for Obama's health care and government pensions.



Most important both figured out a way to use the sinister action by Clinton officials at the end of his term, action that led to the housing, oil and economic crisis that nearly destroyed the world, to advance their causes. Gore rode the ushering in of a decade of greed to a personal gain of $100 million and billions more in potential income from Obama's cap and trade while Osama rode the decade of greed into undermining the world economy.



If it all sounds like a surreal movie then reality follows fiction more than we might think. Maybe the Nobel Peace prize committee in Oslo will decide that Osama has just as much potential to bring about world peace as Barack Obama, and Al Gore, two former winners of the world's strangest awards show, and give it to Osama to encourage him like they did our president.



In the meantime the newest winner of the Nobel Peace prize, President Barack Obama, will continue his massive military build up in Afghanistan with 100,000 US soldiers now committed to killing Osama Bin Laden. Somehow it would only be appropriate to give it to Bin Laden. I mean look at all Gore and Obama have done to advance the cause of peace.



It is times like this when I think we really do live in an alternate universe, like Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, where nothing is as it seems.



-

Scientists Attach Hope to Wrong Rising Star - Blow Credibility & Get Gored

-




The Washington Post reported today that Americans have lost faith in scientists. Surprised? Well the liberal media seems shocked and the progressive socialist movement cannot stand it but the public, well, maybe they know exactly what they are doing.

Maybe scientists of the world involved in the culture of climate change blew it when they ordained Al Gore as the spokesperson for their movement and gave him the Nobel Peace Prize to prove his worth. Seems the scientists should have been checking his net worth as well and his associations outside the socialist movement.



After promising Congress in hearings over the years that his foundation was donating all money to furthering the global warming movement we discover the Gore view of the global warming movement is the very same as the Wall Street kingpins responsible for the housing, oil, and bank crisis in America.

While pursuing his altruistic crusade to save the planet Gore was padding his own pockets to the tune of $100 million and that was just the down payment from Goldman Sachs and Wall Street to good old Gore for hijacking the global warming movement.



You see, they gave Gore a partner from Goldman Sachs to help him save the world and fuel the coffers of the banking community by helping him set up investment funds that will control what green industries will get capital, (those that kick back the most to the Jolly Green Giant and Godfather), and he created the new stock exchange (Cap and Trade) to control the sale of carbon credits worldwide, which will be managed by Goldman Sachs.



The only green Mr. Gore was really pursuing seems to be the money flowing into his bank account, probably managed by Goldman as well. Did they really expect to become billionaires without the public getting wise to the lies and deceit?



So the scientists back Gore, make him the Obama of the Global Warming community (yet another strategic investment by Goldman and Wall Street), they get their progressive sounding socialist leaning candidate for president elected, and as the prize was just within their reach the numbers did not add up to justify their raid on the world treasury.



Suddenly Obama and the Chicago/Wall Street gang were losing their ability to fool the people and raid the treasury. Cap and Trade legislation unveiled the Wall Street, Gore and Goldman interest in raiding the treasury for $100 billion a year to other nations for their global warming efforts. In spite of the best efforts by the progressives to bury the linkage between Wall Street and the Jolly Green Giant word leaked out.

Hackers uncovered the pressure on scientists to alter the facts to make sure the greenbacks would flow like the great flood and suddenly part of the puzzle unraveled. Scientific reports were being manipulated to guarantee Gore and Wall Street would make their billions. This was not about protecting the environment or saving a crippled planet, it was about cash flow.



As the American public began to dig deeper and deeper into the true intent of the Obama gang, and the avalanche of legislation demanded by the White House was dissected, the scientists became pawns, the bad guys, while the inner sanctum desperately tried to generate enough fear to get the bills passed. The retirement accounts for a lot of public officials must have been riding on the outcome. But the inner sanctum operates on the premise the public can be fooled all the time and they under estimated what would happen if they were wrong.

Wake up Washington, the folks on Main Street are not the fools you thought you could lead like lambs to the slaughter. Main Street is disgusted with all politicians, along with the kings of Wall Street, and now the group of scientists who tried to manufacture evidence of mankind's sins for the benefit of a few and the liberal media trying to cover up all the sins.



Oh yes, the end is near, but not of the planet. No, the end you have to worry about is the end of corruption, manipulation, greed, lies and fear. Pack your bags because your days in our nation's capitol are numbered. Main Street is about to take back America. When it does Main Street will have a score to settle with those who abused their powers and trust. Are you one of them?

-

Al Gore versus Sarah Palin - The Great Hot Air Debate

-






America's most prominent conservationists squared off this week over Climategate and the future of global warming as Sarah Palin wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, yes that same paper who made it a goal of wrecking her career, about the flaws with global warming and in particular the new disclosures that key scientists were making up statistics to prove humans cause global warming.

Of course Al Gore is the celebrated former Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize winner who has continued to fool the news media as even today Andrea Mitchell, the NBC reporter who seems to think Gore can do no wrong and Palin no right, admiringly referred to Gore in an interview as former vice president and current environmentalist.



Has Andrea even read the flurry of articles about how Gore hijacked the global warming movement along with Goldman Sachs and turned it into a cash cow for lining his own pockets? Just this week Gore was booed out of a meeting in Ohio when he began pontificating about the cap and trade bill that will make him a billionaire. He's already a multi-millionaire as he made $100 million since losing the presidential race a couple of elections ago.

Fact is Mr. Gore may be the biggest loser ever for president as he converted his loss into being the $100 million environmental king to the liberals of the world. Did he tell the environmentalists and conservationists out on the front lines that he created a couple of investment funds that control the stock of most emerging green companies and stands to make billions of dollars if Obama can get the cap and trade bill through congress?



Seems the Jolly Green Giant didn't like Sarah Palin taking aim at his cherished movement and the lying scientists who made him rich so thanks to Andrea Mitchell who never misses a chance to make Palin look bad, she reported Gore blasted back calling Palin a "Denier" and claiming evidence over the past 20 years proves the Earth is warming.



The new Sarah Palin has a grasp of issues heretofore unknown to leftist liberals like Mr. Gore, she actually stands up for what she believes and has no intention of taking it from opportunists like Big Al. Politico's Andy Barr reported her response this morning.

From Politico

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hit back at former Vice President Al Gore on Wednesday for calling her a global warming “denier.”

Speaking to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday, Gore criticized an op-ed Palin wrote for the Washington Post calling on President Barack Obama to boycott the global climate change conference in Copenhagen.

“The deniers are persisting in an era of unreality. The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our eyes,” Gore said. “What do they think is happening?”

“It's a principle in physics,” Gore said of climate change. “It's like gravity, it exists.”



Palin took to her Facebook page late Wednesday to respond to Gore.

“Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it,” Palin wrote. “However, he’s wrong in calling me a ‘denier.’ As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.”

Palin then turned her response to the so-called “Climategate” story as evidence that scientific findings are “flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.”



“Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science,” Palin wrote. “Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.”

“Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists,” she added. “You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.”

End of Politico article.



Since when did Al Gore find it necessary to attack Sarah Palin. Well, did you know Andrea Mitchell's environmentalist also owns his own television network? Did you know he also flies a private jet wherever he goes? A private jet, some environmentalist.

Gore's TV network has been viciously attacking Sarah Palin since going on the air recently as it seems she stands as a threat to expose his secret Wall Street partnerships and his Fat Cat status. They even have a cartoon about Palin called "The Stupid Virus".

In the Al Gore cartoon about Palin they call Sarah a Twilf, to demonstrate how Gore has a grasp of the Urban Dictionary texting age. What does it mean you might ask? Well probably not what you might expect from our former vice president and presidential hopeful.

According to the Urban Dictionary, Twift mean "one who farts in the bathtub and bites the bubbles." Other Internet sources claim it means a "disgraceful, sexually-charged epithet". That is the mindset of our former VP and nation's environmentalist.

When the liberal media complains about the hostile and downright nasty political environment in current politics they must be talking about the Al Gore's of the world and their juvenile, even mean spirited attacks on people like Sarah Palin who are just trying to defend the people with no voice in Washington.

-