Monday, April 27, 2015

By Nancy Thorner and Elvira Hasty – 

The Climate Change issue may very well represent the biggest deception in the history of mankind – one sold to gullible individuals and elite multimillionaires. The same wealthy globalists that have exploited our economies have also taken advantage of the scientific ignorance of our populations.

The Vatican will host a major conference on climate change this week on Tuesday, April 28, featuring some of the world’s leading climate scientists including an opening address by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The conference, Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity: The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development, will also feature Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent American economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

This event is just the latest in what many are calling Pope Francis’s “green agenda.” He has become an outspoken advocate on environmental issues, saying acting on climate change is “essential to faith”  and calling the destruction of nature a modern sin. He has vowed to only increase pressure on world leadersafter his disappointment with the Lima climate talks. He is hoping that his encyclical will influence the climate talks in Paris at the end of the year.

The Heartland Institute has sent a team of climate scientists to Rome to bring the Vatican a message of truth for all with open ears to hear, that science is not settled, and global warming is not a crisis. The world’s poor will suffer horribly if reliable energy – the engine of prosperity and a better life – is made more expensive and less reliable by the decree of global planners.”

Scheduled for today, Monday, April 27, a slate of independent scientists and policy experts will offer a “prebuttal” to what will follow tomorrow when the Vatican’s Climate Summit takes place.  It is then that scientists and policy experts will lay out a detailed case explaining why climate science does not justify the Holy See putting his faith in the work of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

When was science changed to a democratic vote by the majority based on flawed reports circulated by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The science currently taught in schools comes from politicians and the media’s reliance on junk science, such as spread through Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” A large number of scientists throughout the world have been skeptical about global warming for years, and with good reason. CO2 levels on earth have in the past been four to eighteen times the current readings.  Global climate has warmed since the Little Ice Age (1400 to 1700 AD).   The first warming period occurred between 1900 and 1945; the second in 1975 until 1998, and then stopped and began falling again after reaching a high of l.l6 degrees F. above the average Global Mean Temperature.  There hasn’t been any warming since 1998.  It is important to understand that the information being accepted as indisputable truth comes from IPCC reports based on computer models.  The actual temperatures measured by both satellite data and independent balloon data show a near zero trend from 1979-1997.

Does loving the poor include making earth our God?  What we need is moral courage to stand for our Judeo/Christian principles.  This is the only way to really love the poor.  The environmental regulations that environmentalists consider beneficial will cause more unemployment and poverty.  Consider the following excerpts from Climate Depot, “The Environmental Case for Fossil Fuels”:

“The United States has the best air, water, indoor temperature, crops, sanitation, water supplies, storm-protection, sanitation, and overall environmental quality in human history — while other are plagued by heat waves, cold snaps, droughts, storms, crops failures, malaria, and dozens of other dread diseases, filth, dung-burning fire, lack of clean drinking water.  The reason for this development — the improvement of nature to meet human needs.  Every aspect of development has one common requirement: cheap, plentiful energy”. . . “And we would not have cheap, plentiful reliable energy without the fossil fuel industry”. . . “And when you hear heartbreaking stories of children with diseases that we once had but no longer do — malaria, tuberculosis, even the plague — you should commit yourself to bringing about a world that produces more energy.”

Pope Francis and some bishops are correct in saying that the environmental issue is a moral issue, but unfortunately they have sided with the elitists who falsely consider themselves to be moralists.  How is it moral to deny cheap energy for the poorest people on earth so that the elitists can enjoy nature at their pleasure by placing the earth above human beings?

Genesis 1:27 – 28:  “God created man in his image, in the divine image He created Him:  Male and female He created them.  God blessed them, saying:  Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.  Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds on the air, and all the living things that move on earth.”

Without cheap energy millions throughout the world cannot provide food and clean water for their families.  Why should the poor in Africa have to the development that energy has brought to the West?  Reduction of carbon emissions would bring disaster to the poorest people on earth, the ones Christians are supposed to love.  A 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 would only reduce Global Average Temperature in 2100 by an inconsequential 0.07C.  Even an elimination of all CO2 emissions by the United States would prevent only 0.17C of warming.

We don’t need to lower carbon dioxide emissions to protect nature.  After all, it is essential gas for life.  How ignorant have we become that we can be so easily deceived?  The only reason global elitists fight for environmental regulations like Cap and Trade is to expand their control over the world economy and impose their political and social views.  Are we not seeing enough already of how well the global elitists have so far managed the world?

Surely the Pope is not calling for less people to inhabit the earth through population control that for some justifies forced abortion, sterilization, and contraception because we as human beings are destroying the planet and more people equals more pollution.  Here in the U.S. there are twice as many people living here than in the early seventies, yet the skies over our major cities are clearer now than they were a half century ago.

Surely Pope Francis is not in compliance with the United Nations Population Fund UNFPA that continues to cheerlead China’s one-child policy, ignoring the forced abortions and forced sterilizations that follow?   The same UN fund continues to distribute 40 million doses of Depo-provera each year to unsuspecting women—despite the fact that this product is so unsafe that the FDA recommends against its use. India still sterilizes over 4 million women annually under a system of statewide sterilization targets, ignoring the rising death toll of women who have died in such campaigns.

Two recent articles provide a nice springboard for what the Pope needs to hear from the climate scientists and policy experts at his Conference on Climate Change, who will lay out a detailed case explaining why climate science does not justify the Holy See putting his faith in the faulty work of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

  • A Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records and found our climate models are WRONG:  Global warming slowed – and recent changes are down to “natural variability.”

In what has become a political issue, an encyclical by Pope Francis to influence climate talks in Paris at the end of the year is unbecoming and unwarranted action for Pope Francis, as the leader of the Catholic Church world-wide, or for any church to be engaged in.  May the Pope’s mind be open to reason when climate scientists today and tomorrow bring a message of truth to the Vatican and the Pope that science is not settled, and that global warming is not a crisis, both of which the Pope accepts as true and indisputable.

On this topic, IR contributor Nancy Thorner collaborated with Elvira F. Hasty, PhD, a retired chemistry professor living in Florida.

Monday, April 27, 2015 at 08:30 AM | Permalink


Comment below or sign in with Typepad Facebook Twitter Google+ and more…

Contact IR

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Thursday, April 23, 2015


By Nancy Thorner – 

The results of CNN poll on April 20, placed former Governor Jeb Bush, as of yet an undeclared candidate, at the top of the Republican Party’s presidential picks for 2016.  With no competition Hillary won the top spot for the Left.  Although name recognition is helpful in attracting supporters, in regard to Jeb Bush, how much is really known about him?  Jeb describes himself as a “Conservative Reformer”, but it will be remembered that his brother’s presidency exhibited “Compassionate Conservatism”.  After G.W. was elected president conservatives were not at all pleased with what his compassionate conservatism was all about.

It would be negligent not to explore and investigate Jeb Bush, the candidate. Is Bush really the conservative he vigorously touts as being when he served as a two-term Florida governor? There are reports that claim Jeb Bush governed as a conservative, but a number of years have passed since Jeb completed his second term in 2007.

As detailed in Part 1 of “Jeb Bush, a Conservative, a Moderate, or a Globalist,” Bush didn’t allow challengers to stand in his way when running and winning the governorship two times in Florida.  As such it is fair to use past behavior to present insight into Jeb Bush’s possible conduct in his yet-to-be-announced presidential bid.  A  Crowley Political Report on Feb. 26 questioned whether Jeb Bush would act like a bully if and when he declares himself a GOP presidential candidate. Since Bush vowed that he would run for president only if he could do so “joyfully”, the bully concept cannot be dismissed.

Noted in a New York Times article is that behind the scenes Bush and his aides have pursued the nation’s top campaign donors, political operatives, and policy experts with an eye to rapidly locking up the highest-caliber figures, making it all but impossible for other Republican candidates to assemble a high-octane campaign team. In each of his governor elections in 1998, and 2002, Bush attempted to corner the market, willing to “joyfully” hurl a fastball straight to the noggin of anyone who dared to get in his way.  This Times story is worth reading for more insight in the “Bush way of campaigning joyfully.”

As observed when Jeb Bush made an appearance in Nashua, New Hampshire, on April 18, Bush may very well mirror his actions that twice helped him win the governorships of Florida.  As reported on April 18, ties between Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (a 43-year-old son of Cuban immigrants) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (a 62-year-old member of one of the nation’s most powerful political dynasties), political allies for more than a decade, are fraying as the Republican presidential campaign picks up steam.  In public, mentor Bush and protege Rubio, have avoided criticizing each other since Rubio announced his candidacy, but Bush allies have started quietly spreading negative information about Rubio’s record.  So far Rubio’s team has declined to respond in kind.

As Al Cardenas remarked, a Bush adviser also close to Rubio: “Sparks are going to fly. For the first time in our country’s history you’ve got two guys from the same town in the same state from same party running in the same primary.” A well connected individual in Florida told Thorner that it was Jeb Bush who pushed Rubio into supporting amnesty in the Senate, which in turn hurt Rubio with the Republican conservative base. Jeb wasn’t pleased when Rubio withdrew his amnesty position.

Early on there are cues pointing to likelihood that Jeb Bush is being endorsed and funded heavily by the Republican establishment.  As Phyllis Schlafly relates in her book. “A Choice Not An Echo.” in early 1936 a little group of secret kingmakers (prominent financiers and industrialists) laid long-range plans to control the Republican Party. This group has used every trick to dictate the choice of the Republican presidential nominee up to now.  It was the kingmakers who were responsible for derailing and destroying Senator Barry Goldwater in the election of 1964. In the eyes of the kingmakers, it was anyone but Goldwater, preferring, as they did, the continuation of the policies of Democrat incumbent Lyndon Johnson to those of Goldwater.

With this in mind, there is every reason to believe the kingmakers of today, although faces have changed, are partial to Jeb Bush as the 2016 Republican presidential nominee. The perception being, Bush is himself a loyal Republican Establishment member and also a confirmed globalist, following in the steps of his father (G.H.) and brother (G.W.). Writing in the Christian Science Monitor Mark Sappenfield had this to say about Jeb Bush as a yet undeclared candidate:

“Bush III is not yet in the presidential race, though he is apparently raising enough money to singlehandedly send Richard Branson to Jupiter, so there’s not much mystery about his intentions”. . . “Bush’s hundreds of millions are as good an indicator as any right now of where the establishment’s money is (literally).”

To some it might seem conspiratorial to imply that the mechanics are already being set in motion to ensure that Jeb Bush is the 2016 Republican candidate.  Consider this:  Even before Jeb Bush has officially declared his candidacy for 2016, he is preparing to give the traditional campaign a makeover by turning some of his campaign’s central functions over to a separate political organization (a PAC) that can raise unlimited amounts of money.  Not that other candidates haven’t done so, but for Bush the potential benefits are enormous. Campaigns can raise only $2,700 per donor for the primary and $2,700 for the general election. A super PAC, however, enables a candidate to raise unlimited cash from individuals, corporations and groups such as labor unions.  This means that in theory a small group of wealthy Bush supporters could pay for much of the work of electing him by writing massive checks to the super PAC.

Bush, when he finally does declare, would begin a White House bid with confidence that he will have the money behind him to make a deep run into the primaries. Even if Bush should stumble early on, spooking small-dollar donors and starving his own campaign of money, he would still have the means to carry on.  It is perceived that the ability of the super PAC to legally raise unlimited amounts of money far outweighs its primary disadvantage, that of not being able to legally coordinate its actions with Bush or his would-be campaign staff.

On the whole, conservatives aren’t happy with the broken campaign promises of those they elect to office, such as now exists in the 114th United States Congress where Republican Party members are failing to live up to their campaign promises.  Few would dispute that our vote for president stands above all others in importance.  This is especially true in 2016 given the precarious state of this nation and its descent into financial insolvency and moral bankruptcy.

Does Jeb Bush have what it takes to turn this nation around as a conservative reformer?  It’s going to be extremely difficult to convince many American, other than establishment Republicans who want to win at any cost, that Bush’s views on Amnesty, Common Core, and Climate Change are not Democrat-lite in their scope.

Part Two will explore Jeb Bush’s positions on  Amnesty, Common Core, and Climate Change, as expressed by Bush himself, in his still unannounced campaign.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Monday, April 13, 2015

Friday, April 03, 2015

Screen Shot 2015-04-02 at 4.23.35 PM

U.S. Senator Joni Ernst with GOP Committeewoman Demetra DeMonte and husband Tony

By Nancy Thorner – 

CHICAGO –  Last Saturday, the Chicago-based conservative group Family PAC Federal hosted newly-elected U.S. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa. The group, chaired by John McEnroe,has raised nearly $1 million for federal candidates.

Preferring not to speak behind a podium, using a hand-held microphone Senator Joni Ernst appeared humble and sincere. She admitted that her life has been quite a journey from where she is now from where she came from.

Senator Ernst was born in Southwest Iowa, a very sparsely populated area of Iowa, on a small family farm.  She has an older brother and a younger sister. They all pitched in with the chores, which was part of life when growing up in rural Iowa. Her father worked hard and was determined to provide for his family.  But when farming hit a rough patch, Jodi’s dad purchased a bulldozer and did construction work on the side.  This too became a family endeavor. Through it all Jodi was taught the value of hard work, the determination to see things through, and the value of the dollar.

Screen Shot 2015-04-02 at 4.27.48 PM  Screen Shot 2015-04-02 at 4.29.12 PM

Senator Ernst (L) and Family PAC’s Executive Director Paul Caprio (R)

After high school Jodi Ernst went to Iowa State University.  While in college Ernst became an exchange student, traveling to Ukraine with 17 other students to  spend several weeks on a Ukrainian collective farm.  In the evening talk sessions were held, but instead of the conversation centering around agriculture, Joni and her fellow college students were asked questions, such as:  1) What is it like to be an American?, 2) what type of government does America have?, and 3) How was your government formed?

Jodi Ernst’s Ukrainian student exchange trip changed the direction of her life. Driven to to do something more for her country, Jodi joined the ROTC and was later deployed to the Middle East for 14 months, where during 2003 and 2004 she participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 1168th Transportation Company of the Iowa National Guard, commanded by Jodi Ernst, drove across Kuwait and southern Iraq transporting materials from May to August 2003.

Later in its deployment the Iowa unit served as a protection detail outside Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.  As there were no armored vehicles at the time, it was fortunate that the unit had no IDs to contend with.  Prayer, however, was essential to Jodi and her fellow deployed Iowa National Guardsmen.  Of the150 deployed to the Middle East, all came back home.  The fact that all 150 came home safe and sound was a significance and important event in Jodi’s life.

Arriving home from deployment, Jodi Ernst became aware of challenges that existed in her home county of Montgomery, Iowa.  Accepting a political challenge, Jodi Ernst ran and won her bid for a seat in the Iowa Senate, which led directly to her Iowa U.S. Senate victory in 2014.  While serving in the Iowa state senate Jodi observed that a level of respect must be present among elected members in order for an effective and open level of communication to exist.

Joni Ernst as a newly-elected Iowa senator

A show of respect by other U.S. senators was apparent when Senator Jodi Ernst, while yet in her first month of serving as a newly elected senator from Iowa, was chosen to give the Republican response to President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union Address. Sporting camouflage high-heels, Ernst referred to herself as “a soldier” in the second line of her speech. Senator Jodi Ernst’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address can heard here.

Being a pro-life candidate is a bedrock position for Senator Ernst.  Informed that her pro-life position would sink her candidacy, Ernst stood by her values.  Yet Joni Ernst was elected by an amazing majority of 8-1/2 points over her Democrat challenger.  In the Senate Joni serves on the Values Action Team with Republicans Tim Scott, Roy Blunt, and James Lankford.  Joni’s favorite topic to bring up at meetings is the life issue.

Speaking about her first 90 days as a U.S. senator, Senator Ernst related what a remarkable journey it has been. Referring to the Republican-led U.S. Senate approved 2016 budget blueprint that was finally enacted at 3:00 a.m. on Friday, March 27th, after much jockeying and compromise, Senator Ernst applauded the legislation as an important Senate achievement.

As remarked by Senator Ernst: “It was the first time in seven years that a budget was passed by the Senate.”  It has been reported that the Senate legislation will balance the budget in 10 years without raising taxes, trim trillions of spending dollars, and repeal “Obamacare.” Now the House and the Senate need to reconcile the differences that exist in their bills.

The House of Representatives approved its own budget version on Wednesday, March 25, a nearly $3.8 trillion plan which eliminates the federal deficit in nine years and slashes $5.5 trillion in spending over a decade.  Senator Ernst spoke of an effort made by senators to raise military spending, but because the sequester caps are still in place for the Department of Defense, military spending can’t be increased as long as the caps are in effect.

Questions directed to Senator Ernst were limited because of her scheduled flight back to Iowa:

Question 1:  Our debt is $18 trillion, yet it’s more like $120 trillion.  Why don’t we hear more about our massive debt level and what will be done about it?

The unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are now on auto pilot.  They are not budgeted.  This must change.  Disability payments have only two more years to go before the system is broken.  Hard decisions lie ahead if programs are to be funded. 

Question 2:  What do you think of the League of Women Voters?

Don’t worry about the group.  To Hillary it’s not enough to just be a woman.  You also have to care about women’s issues.  But don’t most women care a lot about education for their children, jobs and the economy, national security, and getting rid of Obamacare?  Senator Ernst linked the appeal of the League of Women’s Voters to those voters who accept there is a war on women.

A plaque was presented by Anthony “Tony” Nasharr of Wounded Heroes Foundation Inc. to Senator Jodi Ernst to honor her military service and dedication to country.

Paul Caprio thanked all for attending the event, offering this final remark, “This is a great country that can defeat history.”