Skip to content

Archive for


Why Won’t President Obama Go On Fox News?


Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes recently admitted he in effect abdicated his role as a journalist when it comes to interviewing and reporting on President Obama. His interview of President Obama and Secretary Clinton on January 27, 2013 was little more than a love fest between a super star and his adoring fans, the media. It was disgusting. The public found out nothing of substance about how President Obama’s policies and actions are impacting their lives. Steve Kroft refused to ask President Obama any gotcha questions. Gotcha questions the media routinely asked President Bush. Is that why President Obama refuses to go on Fox News? Is it because he knows that if he went on Fox News he would be asked some gotcha questions about his record? A record he cannot defend if challenged and he knows it. If President Obama had gone on Fox News the interview may have been a lot different. Maybe something like this:

Fictional Interview By Fox News With President Obama:



Fox News Reporter:

Mr. President, The deficit has grown to 16 trillion dollars under your leadership. Economists say getting the deficit under control is one of the most pressing domestic issue of our time. If not brought under control the US will in effect, go bankrupt which will bring devastation to the lives of everyone in the U.S. Especially the poor. Your major effort to bring the deficit under control so far is to increase the taxes of the 1%, the rich. Yet the CBO estimates that Obama’s tax the rich increases will only bring in a measley $42 billion in 2013 and $38 billion in 2014 which which is “peanuts to a government that spends $3.6 trillion a year”. So far your major proposals to reduce spending,the other part of the deficit reduction equation, have had little if any impact on reducing the deficit. I repeat, Spending has grown to an astounding 16 trillion dollars in the four years of your Presidency. Given your deficit reduction plans are not working to well, do you you have any other plans to reduce spending, Mr. President?

President Obama.

The republicans only plan is to bring a hatchet to the budget. I am using a scalpel and going though the budget line by line to see what we can cut so it will not hurt the people most in need who count on the government for their livelihood, the poor, the disabled and the elderly which are my top priorities when it comes to spending. Let me be clear the rich are not paying their fair share . The rich need to pay a little more to help pay for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid .

Fox News:

With all due respect President Obama, I do not see that you have used a scalpel to go over the budget line by line. In point of fact, under you leader ship the number of Federal employees have increased by 143,000. Their annual salaries average $84,000. What cuts have you made in spending, give one specific example please.

President Obama:

Well that is just plain wrong. If you count State and Postal workers the number of government employees have gone down overall.

Also,I made Medicare more sound by reducing spending by 716,000.

Fox News:

But isn’t the overall reduction in State and Postal workers a reflection of the bad economy under your watch and the Postal service going broke? Also the reduction in Medicare spending was not really a reduction in over all spending was it? The cuts in Medicare went back into the Obamacare spending didn’t it? Are their any other cuts you can cite?

President Obama:

Silence Now you know why I don’t go on Fox News. You guys are full of it.

Fox News:

President Obama has just terminated the interview and left the room. If we ever get another interview with President Obama, which I doubt very much, you can count on us to do our jobs as journalists and pursue the questions that the public has a right to know about. An informed public is the only thing standing in the way of tyranny.


The above is pure fiction and may not reflect what President Obama would actually say if challenged by Fox News. However since we know President Obama will never subject himself to any gotcha questions from Fox News and he can count on NBC, CBS,ABC and CNN ever asking him any gotcha questions Power To The People will be starting a new series of articles called:

Gotcha Questions For President Obama the Media (except Fox News) Refuses To Ask. This is the first article in the series.


Affordable Energy Is A Human Rights Issue

Why do so many among the ranks of the rich and famous want to deny poor people affordable power? Power that they take for granted as they jet around the world in their private jets on a crusade to stop the development of cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy like Natural Gas.

The availability of affordable Natural Gas would greatly improve the lives of the poor. It would give the poor the ability to heat their homes, drive to work and go to school. So why are the rich and famous so hell bent in their quest to deny the poor affordable power? Do they want the poor to live lives of hopelessness and misery? Why do they ignore even demonize people who point out the overwhelming empirical evidence that proves their anti fossil fuel beliefs and associated man made Climate Change beliefs are false. “At the moment, it seems highly likely that the cure is worse than disease. We are taking chemotherapy for a cold.” Matt Ridley

The latest cause celeb among the rich and famous is anti fracking. Their unfounded claims about the dangers of fracking to the water and air have caused great hardship to many people, especially the poor.


The War Against Climate Change is A War Against The Poor

The purpose of this article is to explore the powerful forces behind the War On Climate Change. Forces that claim their advocacy of Climate Change is to save the world from the catastrophes the earth would face if the green house gas, CO2 man made emissions are not brought back to a preindustrial level, say to 1885 levels. But as we can see from the graft image

of US CO2 emissions vs temperatures, since 1895 CO2 have gone up but temperatures have remained pretty flat. So why all the fear mongering?

Many prior articles on the net have documented the various power mongers in government, academia, Hollywood, the environmental movement, Saudi Arabia and Russia who are the main forces behind the War On Climate Change. Their motives are a mosaic of greed, power and an unfounded belief that humans are destroying the planet and to save the earth we must regress back to a pre industrial more bucolic world like the Garden of Eden maybe. Below are some links to prior articles that expose the forces and people behind the Climate Change Movement.

1. Some are just plain greedy

2. Some seek power

3. Some believe humans are pests who need to be controlled by limiting their population.

4. Some are powerful energy competitors of the U.S. like Russia and Saudi Arabia, who have a vested interest in preventing the U.S. from developing our own vast fossil fuel resources.

The only people benefiting from the climate change movement are the rich and powerful in government, academia and in the Green Energy Industry where billions of tax pay dollars have been wasted on failed businesses. The other people behind the movement are on large part misanthropic zealots who have infiltrated themselves into the IPCC and EPA where their bias views of climate change predominate. The people who suffer the most from this matrix of greed, power and zealots in the Climate Change movement are the poor.


Climate Change News – January 25, 2013

Climate Change News – January 25, 2013

Solar Projects lose billions – So Why Does President Obama Want Tax Payers to Waste Money On Them?

Mammal and Bird Claim Extinctions Due To Climate Change Debunked

Are the Irish and President Obama giving away the family silver for the Wind Con?Con With The Wind |

If Electric Cars add another $2000 a year to your electric bill and require more power in the Grid will they do more harm to the environment and the pocket book than their worth? YES THEY WILL!!!


Why Does The Left Hate Fossil Fuel?


  1. Why does the left hate Fossil Fuels?

The use of Fossil Fuels have provided a standard of living for billions of people once enjoyed only by Kings. DiCaprio jets around the world to save the world from Fossil FuelDaryl Hannah puts her body in front of a Keystone Pipeline pipe to protest its development than gets on a jet for another protest against fossil fuel or maybe goes back to her multi million dollar home in Los Angeles. Barbara Streisand gives millions to anti fossil fuel activists while living a life of luxury in her multi million dollar mansion in Malibu. Their grandiose life style is all due to the money their fans spend to see them perform. So why are they using their celebrity status and money to deny their adoring fans a decent lifestyle made possible by fossil fuel? Why the betrayal? Why the hypocrisy? Their success allows them to live a life of luxury that would not be possible without the power Fossil Fuel provides. If they are successful in their war against Fossil Fuel, their wealth will make them immune from the hard ships their fans will be forced to endure due to the “sky rocketing” costs of fossil fuel.

My conclusion is the Hollywood elite seem prone to an irrational belief that disaster looms over every horizon that can only forestalled by embarking on some heroic quest, Saving the planet from Climate Change for example. While their pursuits are limited to fighting the imaginary threat of Climate Change, thank God for the real world heroes who find real solutions to actual problems, new fracking technology for example. In the mean time the Hollywood misanthropists gladly avail themselves of the benefits of Fossil Fuel while jetting around the world screaming for more virgins to be thrown into volcanoes to appease the vengeful goddess Gaia.


Climate Change News Jan 25, 2013

Climate Change News

Not Very Warm Is It?

Maybe It’s Getting Colder?

Since Empirical Data Is Proving Climate Scientists Warming Theory Wrong They Say Shut Up To Those Who Point Out The Obvious

Could It Be The Sun?

Power To The People


People Need Power

People Need Power.

So why is the left so hell bent on taking power away from the people? The left wants to “skyrocket” the people’s energy costs so the poor, in particular, can’t afford it. They want to ban the use of guns so only the people in power can get them. They want to increase taxes so people have less money to spend the way they want to. They even want to limit the size of a “Big Gulp” so you can’t drink as much soda as you want. Where does it end? The only freedom the left seems to thinks is worth while is the freedom to kill your unborn child.

The United States was founded on the premise that every individual has a set of “inalienable rights” granted to each individual by a supreme being that can not be taken away by government. It is clear the left does not believe in this founding premise. A premise of individual rights that have led to one of the most prosperous and free Nations in history. Until now.

The U.S. is in a death spiral of debt,high unemployment, sky rocketing numbers of people on food stamps and want does President Obama say our greatest priority is? The war on Climate Change.

In a rational world the media would be all over President Obama for his blatant disregard of the issues that will bring our economy to it’s knees if not addressed. This was high lighted most clearly in President Obama’s Inaugural Speech where he ignored the one thing, if unchecked, that will be our Nation to ruin. The deficit. A once powerful and prosperous Nation will be brought down. People will lose everything they cherish. Their power to steer their lives in the direction they choose will be gone. Is this the direction President Obama wants to steer the Nation into? Over the cliff?


Can Green Energy Save The Planet From Climate Change?

President Obama asserts that anything that is labeled “Green” power, Wind, Bio Fuel and Solar) are good for people and the climate and worth the billions of tax payer dollarinvestment” that is required for their development. Whereas Coal, Oil and Natural Gas , (the three pillars of abundant, reliable and cheap energy for the US and the world) are all bad for people and the root cause of climate change and severe weather. Thus, the logic goes, must be taxed to the hilt so their costs “skyrocket” making them too expensive for anyone to afford, (especially the poor). The fact the US is estimated to be the largest source of fossil fuel in the world is never factored into the equation. So is President Obama doing the right thing by the people he serves when he enacts energy policies that forbids their use? Let’s take a look at some of the issues surrounding President Obama’s pledge to save the world from Climate Change by skyrocketing the cost of coal, oil and natural gas.

Lets look at Coal first. Are coal’s CO2 emisssions dangerously warming the planet as the President claims? By the way, to accept this premise you must also buy into the temperature data USHCN is releasing to the public** The fact is despite the rise in CO2 the planet has not warmed for 16 years . The revised temperature data from the UK Met negates the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGW) aka (climate change) that says that when CO2 goes up so do the temperatures. There has been a fifty years’ rise in CO2 without the temperature correlations the AGW models predicted. The facts are clear to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear, CO2 emmisions have little if anything to do with climate change. The sun, ocean currents and clouds have far more impact on climate change than CO2 does.

As noted above by real world empirical data, CO2 emissions from coal are not primary cause of climate change. So it would be irresponsible to snuff out coal as a source of power for the US unless President Obama has an alternative and better source of energy. Yes? President Obama says Wind Turbines are the ticket. Or are they?

Lets examine if Wind Turbines are the ticket for replacing coal by looking at some of the dataWind Turbines are a very intermittent and unreliable source of energy compared to coal. Lets compare the Ceres Project 600MW wind plant in Australia to an equivalent 600MW coal fired plant. If the so called “social costs” of CO2 emmisions are taken oit of the equarion here is what we get. The below calculations are based on a Wind Plant operating 25% during its estimated 15 year life span compared to a coal plant operating 80% of the time during its typical 50 year life span. If you factor in the fact a Wind Plants life span is only 12 years, not 15, the below life time power comparisons between the two are even more ridiculous. This holds true even if you shorten the life span of a coal plant to 30 years. Making one think humans are pretty stupid erecting these bird killing monstrosities. Of course, if you factor in all the government subsidies going to the Green Power companies building these things, you see the logic behind them. Greed.

Total lifetime power from the Ceres Wind Plant is 19,324  MWHq

Total lifetime power from an equivalent coal fired plant is 210,384 MWH

Over its life span the coal fired plant will deliver 10.7 times the power delivered from the Ceres Wind Plant, and deliver that power on a reliable 24/7/365yr basis as opposed to the variability of wind power. *

The Hidden Cost of Wind Energy is a good explanation of the real costs of Wind energy compared to coal. Can you see now how utterly useless Wind Power is? There is no contest. But President Obama says all this is out weighed by the fact Wind Turbines are so much better for the environment than coal is right? Oops, Wind Turbines are documented to kill lots of birds cause health problems for people, require polluting rare earth to manufacture
and as noted above very inefficient and costly to operate. They also lay waste to a lot of land to operate. Bye Bye Buffalo Mountain in Tennessee in it was nice to know you. So maybe wind turbines are not much better than coal ?
So if Wind Turbines are not the holy grail of reliable, cheap, abundant energy that President Obama seeks, what about Bio fuel? Bio fuel is certainly a cleaner better source of energy than oil. Or is it? Other wise why would President Obama want to ban the second pillar of US energy, oil? Coal and Oil made modern industrial Western Civilization possible and improved the lives of billions of people. Poor people in paticular. So again, it would be a very irresponsible to make their costs prohibitive if the alternatives (wind turbines and bio fuel) do not provide an equivalent and environmentally friendly alternative. The politically incorrect truth is Wind Turbines and Bio Fuel are a bad source of energy compared to coal and gas. Moreover, the poor cannot afford the high cost of electricity they produce.

So if Wind Tubines and Bio Fuel are not the way to President Obama’s green utopia what about, solar? Solar
certainly must be better than Natural Gas that uses a method call fracking to extract it? The answer is no. The facts don’t support the Greens claims that, compared to Natural Gas, Solar energy is a clean, reliable and friendly to the environment source of energy. So if the green movement and President Obama gets their way, there goes the third pillar of energy, Natural Gas, that makes modern Western Indusrialized civilization possible.

Given all the above, it is difficult for a rational person to buy into the left’s logic that their war on climate change is justified. There are just too many incoherent dichotomies. For example, how can the left persist in their war on climate change when all the empirical evidence shows man made CO2 emissions have little if anything to do with climate change? Despite all the in your face real world data showing there is no AGW they are still doing their best to make the price of coal, oil and gas skyrocket. Never mind the alternatives are far more costly, unreliable and have their own pretty nasty impacts on mother earth. They also ignore the fact their Green Power alternatives can only provide a fraction of energy that coal oil and natural gas does. Nor do they seem to care that the high costs of energy their climate change energy policies will incur will further erode an already anemic economy putting more people out of work and in the poor house.

In conclusion, what is most troubling is according to President Obama, if he is successful in implementing his green power plans, the cost of energy will necessarily “skyrocket”. This will hurt the poor the most. But so what if the poor are hurt the left says. The left is on a mission from mother earth to save the planet from climate change. The plight of the poor is not their top priority no matter what they claim. The irony is that President Obama’s Green power initiatives are arguably doing more harm to mother earth than coal, oil, or natural gas. So how is it possible for President Obama to say with a straight face that he is the champion of the poor and savior of mother earth when his climate change policies are doing so much harm to the poor and to the environment? I guess the answer is there is another sucker born every minute. The question is, how much longer will people be suckered into believing the AGW hoax before they wake up and see the king has no clothes?

* Wind Plant vs Coal Plant life time power comparison calculations (credit to Tonyfromoz – JoNova 1/18/13)

So, for the Wind Plant:

600(MW) X 4 (hours in a day) X 365. 5 (days in a year, leap year accounted for with the 0. 25 X 0.25(CF of 25%) and the divided by 1000, (to convert from MWH to the GWH) X 15. (years) giving 19,923 GWH

And for the equivalent Coal Fired Plant:

600 MW X 24 hours per day X 365. 5 X 0.8 divided by 1000 X 50 years giving 210,384 GWH .

** last 4 Days of 2012 temperatures missing from NOAA “hottest year” claim
harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says: January 19, 2013 at 2:30 pm The scientific bottom line (I’m speaking as a physicist, for those who don’t know me by now) is that the whole process is garbage, and this little “mystery” of the last 4 days of 2012 missing just underlines that fact. It has no objective meaning whatsoever, except to show climate scientists as totally inept, deluded, and dishonest. Think of it as an episode of “World’s Dumbest Criminals,” and you will understand just how bad the situation is in climate science (all–all–of our supposedly authoritative institutions have been suborned by an incompetent consensus).

Real Science

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" - Richard Feynman

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

Disrupted Physician

The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction

WeatherAction News

News on Piers Corbyn, Earth & Space Weather Action, Climate, Seismic's the Sun stupid!

the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion


News of the day

The Big Green Lie

De-Bunking the Green Scam World-Wide

Inform The Pundits!

A sane person's attempt to make sense of the news

Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations

Sea Surface Temperature, Ocean Heat Content, and Other Climate Change Discussions

Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

Just another weblog

Power To The People

Musings About The Incoherent Dichotomy Of The Liberal Mind


A lagrange point in life


Thinking from a different direction

sunshine hours

Question Authority

All the junk that’s fit to debunk.


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.


“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

This blog is written by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Posts appear Monday, Wednesday & Friday.

%d bloggers like this: