Eco-Terrorism Strikes Again/ ‘Public’ Radio is Socialist Scam

Breitbart.com reported:

A leading (scientist who has questioned the ‘global warming’ theory) has reported that seven shots were fired at his workplace during the weekend’s (April 22) Earth Day and March for Science events — likely as a threat and warning.

Dr Roy Spencer, meteorologist and noted climate skeptic at the University of Huntsville, Alabama, reports on his website that the shots were aimed at the office of his colleague and fellow skeptic, Dr John Christy.

This is the allegedly “peaceful” and pacifist, nature-loving ‘green’ left at work. They will not debate the facts because their arguments do not stand up. Then when they are proven wrong they resort to violence just like nazis used violence against people with whom they disagreed.

We can be sure that this story is going to get zero coverage in the mainstream media.

‘Greenies’ are virtually always wrong. Even after Al Gore won the Nobel Prize and called ‘global warming’ a case of “settled science” the environmentalists then altered the name to ‘climate change’ since the “settled science” was not adding up.

In the so-called ‘Climate-gate’ email scandal top ‘warming’ scientists were found discussing ways to fudge the numbers that were not adding up to make their case. This scandal has been totally suppressed by the mainstream media.

It gets much worse. Nikitas3.com believes that the infamous Fort McMurray wildfire in Canada in May 2016 was intentionally set by eco-terrorists in order to try to destroy the ‘oil sands’ industry that is headquartered in Fort McMurray, Alberta. “Greenies” hate the ‘oil sands’ that may hold up to one trillion barrels of oil.

Out of 3.8 million square miles in Canada Nikitas3.com is suspicious that this wildfire should have broken out conveniently close to Fort McMurray. We know for certain that the fire was caused by humans.

Fortunately Fort McMurray was saved but 2,300 square miles of forest were burned, 2,500 buildings in Fort McMurray were destroyed and the fire did $10 billion in overall damage. It took more than 2 months to get the fire under control, and it may not be fully extinguished even by Spring 2017.

Meanwhile here is some new information about another fake ”green” claim, that ‘fracking’ for oil and natural gas is contaminating groundwater. This is from Fox News:

A major anti-fracking argument by environmentalists may not have the facts to back it up, a new study conducted by Duke University found.
Fracking has not contaminated groundwater in northwestern West Virginia, according to the peer-reviewed study published this month in a European journal.

“Based on consistent evidence from comprehensive testing, we found no indication of groundwater contamination over the three-year course of our study,” explained Avner Vengosh, the professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.

The growing (‘fracking’) industry could help create as many as 3.5 million jobs by 2035, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

We conservatives have been saying this for years. Meanwhile here are my thoughts about the fake claim that “fracking” for oil and natural gas is causing earthquakes in Oklahoma. This is the text of a letter that I submitted to a newspaper in Cushing, Oklahoma:

The people of Oklahoma should ignore the propaganda that you are hearing about fracking and earthquakes.

Earthquakes are caused when rock masses weighing billions of tons shift deep in the earth. This is not going to happen when fracking water is injected into the ground. It is not physically possible.

There are thousands of earthquakes every day all over the world in areas that have fracking and also in areas that do not have fracking. There also are no earthquakes in areas that have fracking and in areas that do not have fracking. In short there is no demonstrable connection between earthquakes and fracking.

This connection is being claimed in Oklahoma in order to harm the oil industry and to promote windmills and solar panels and other ‘green’ sources that make environmentalists wealthy. Here is how USAToday reported on the earthquakes:

“During the fracking process, waste water is collected and later disposed of by injecting it into deep underground wells at high pressure. That water fills pores in dormant faults, causing them to slip and unleash the quakes, according to the USGS.”

Yet we know that oil is vastly more slippery than water, which is why oil is used as a lubricant in our car engines and water is not. If the ‘slip’ theory is true then there would be constant earthquakes everywhere that underground oil exists, which is all over the world. If the ‘slip’ theory were true with water then there would be earthquakes everywhere that there is groundwater, which is over most of the earth.

Even the U.S. Geological Survey is getting in on the action. USAToday reports:

“Three million Americans, primarily in Oklahoma and Kansas, are at risk from human-induced earthquakes this year, the U.S. Geological Survey said Wednesday.”

Thus we are supposed to think, “Wow, this is the US Geological Survey! They know everything about geology!”

No they don’t. These federal government agencies like USGS and EPA are populated by tens of thousands of bureaucrats who are totally politicized against oil, coal and natural gas. State governments are too. These people spend much of their time promoting the ‘green’ agenda which is nothing more than socialism that empowers and enriches bureaucrats, environmentalists and their Democrat party backers.

You can also be sure that there are many ‘green’ moles within the oil industry who act in nefarious ways like suggesting that the industry should support ‘green’ energy or claiming that fracking and earthquakes are related.

Now here is today’s commentary about ‘public’ radio and TV:

Nikitas3.com is not often shocked, but I was really shocked when I found out how many of our taxpayer dollars are going to ‘public’ TV and ‘public’ radio these days – $445 million every year.

And thus if you wonder where the $10 million fortune of Mr. Prairie Home Companion Garrison Keillor on National Public Radio came from, now you know.

But neither Keillor nor NPR nor public TV announcers ever openly thank the taxpayers of America. No, they just give us their left-wing opinion about everything while totally ignoring the slightest hint of conservative thinking.

Always remember the Golden Rule, that liberals are never thankful for anything. They think that they are owed everything… and then they take it.

We see this sharp leftward slant all over the globe in taxpayer-funded media institutions. Perhaps the most significant example is the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which is taxpayer funded and for decades was an authoritative news source for the whole world. Not today. The radicals have taken it over because A) it is a media organization, which liberals are experts at taking over and manipulating to their end; and B) it is funded by government so that the leftists don’t have to worry about money.

After all, it is easier to “get” money or “take” money from taxpayers than to “earn” money like conservatives do. On the other hand Rush Limbaugh has been on the radio for almost 30 years and never has taken a penny in taxpayer money.

So why does National Public Radio deserve so much of our largess? Why doesn’t Rush get it? Or Sean Hannity? Or Fox News? Or Breitbart.com? Or how about Nikitas3.com? Why aren’t I being subsidized?

Good question. And when it comes to liberals’ personal generosity it is a very sad picture. They are notorious skinflints. Here are a few excerpts from an article on the conservative website The American Spectator about the charitable giving of liberals versus conservatives. This is from an article by Peter Schweizer way back in 2008:

Consider the case of (Democrat) Andrew Cuomo, current New York Attorney General and advocate for the homeless. He has, according to his website, “compassion toward the most vulnerable of us.” And this is how the New York Times described the courtship of Kerry Kennedy (of guess which family): “Ms. Kennedy-Cuomo, 43, said she fell in love with Mr. Cuomo, 45, when he took her on a tour of a homeless shelter on their first date and agreed to fast for the labor leader Cesar Chavez.”

But that advocacy should not be confused with actually giving to the less fortunate. Cuomo was a homeless advocate throughout the 1990s, but according to his own tax returns he made no charitable contributions between 1996 and 1999. In 2000 he donated a whopping $2,750. In 2004 and 2005, Cuomo had more than $1.5 million in adjusted gross income but gave a paltry $2,000 to charity.

Cuomo made no charitable contributions in 2003, when his income was a bit less than $300,000.

CUOMO IS NOT alone in this Scroogery of course. Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent of his income to charity. In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7 million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President.

The last two Democratic Party nominees for President have come up short on the charity scale. Al Gore has been famously stingy when it comes to actually giving his own money to charities. In 1998 he was embarrassed when his tax returns revealed that he gave just $353 to charity.

Gore’s office initially defended the action, claiming that the Gores had often given “food and clothing to the homeless.” But when no one showed up in cast-off clothes, Gore’s spokesman Chris Lehane offered a typical “friend of Goodness” response saying that you could only “truly judge a person’s commitment to helping others” you needed to see “what they have done with their lives.” In other words, politics was charity work.

Senator John Kerry likewise has a poor record. In 1995 he gave zero to charity, but did spend $500,000 to buy a half stake in a seventeenth century painting. In 1993, he gave $175 to the needy. Later, of course, Kerry married the rich widow Theresa Heinz, and today is active in charitable causes using the Heinz foundation as his vehicle.

Senator Ted Kennedy has clearly relished his role over the years as a liberal Robin Hood. He once told Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, “I come from an advantaged life, and I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to get re-elected to the U.S. Senate by taking food out of the mouths of needy children.” But this should not be confused with Senator Kennedy actually giving much money to needy children.

Kennedy’s tax returns are obviously a closely guarded secret. But when he chose to run for President in the 1970s, he released some of them. With a net worth of more than $8 million in the early 1970s and an income of $461,444 from a series of family trusts, Senator Robin Hood gave barely 1 percent of his income to charity. The sum is about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his fifty-foot sailing sloop Curragh.

Now here are a few excerpts from a review on Reason.com of a famous book published in 2006 by Arthur C. Brooks called Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism:

Brooks shows that those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality (conservatives) give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention (liberals), with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes. The average donation to educational causes among redistributionists was eight dollars per year, compared with $140 from their ideological opposites, and $96 annually to health care causes from free marketeers versus $11 from egalitarians.

A 2002 poll found that those who thought government “was spending too much money on welfare” were significantly more likely than those who wanted increased spending on welfare to give directions to someone on the street, return extra change to a cashier, or give food and/or money to a homeless person.

Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn’t explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. And while religion is a major factor, the figures don’t just show tithing to churches. Religious donors give significantly more to non-religious causes than do their secular counterparts.

But far more striking than conservatives outbidding their liberal pals for charity points is what Brooks finds about class distinctions. Brooks finds that in families with incomes of less than $14,000 annually, working poor families gives more than three times as much as families on welfare. They also are twice as likely to give, and twice as likely to volunteer. “It is not poverty per se that makes people uncharitable—but rather the government’s policy for eradicating it,” says Brooks.

(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,000 previous editorials!) and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.