In the news today…

-  You know we are heading into the political season and that Democrats are in trouble.  We have Obama once again playing the race card.  We have Nancy Pelosi who starting with the rhetoric that Republicans want women to die.  And you have other liberals who are claiming that Republicans want old people to die and children to starve.  It grows so old.

-  In the latest Rasmussen Poll, Newt Gingrich has moved into third place with Herman Cain and Mitt Romney tied for first.  Newt may be the sleeper candidate as Republicans look for a solid Conservative.

-  Senate Republicans introduced the “Jobs Through Growth Act” Thursday aimed at creating jobs by overhauling the nation’s tax laws, cutting business rules and boosting offshore oil exploration.  The GOP bill  doesn’t include a single item in President Barack Obama’s jobs legislation, which failed in a Senate vote on Tuesday.

- Democrat turned Socialist, Al Gore threw his support behind the Occupy Wall Street protests Wednesday night, arguing that the country’s elected officials have failed the public on everything “from the economy to the climate crisis.”Gore, a vocal advocate of policies to address climate change, called the protests — which have spread around the country — a “true grassroots movement.”

That’s the news for today.

Courtesy:  John Paulus

__________

Polar bears drowning in an Alaskan sea because the ice packs are melting—it’s the iconic image of the global warming debate.

But the validity of the science behind the image—presented as an ignoble testament to our environment in peril by Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth—is now part of a federal investigation that has the environmental community on edge.

Special agents from the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office are questioning the two government scientists about the paper they wrote on drowned polar bears, suggesting mistakes were made in the math and as to how the bears actually died, and the department is eyeing another study currently underway on bear populations.

Biologist Charles Monnett, the lead scientist on the paper, was placed on administrative leave July 18.  Fellow biologist Jeffrey Gleason, who also contributed to the study, is being questioned, but has not been suspended.

The disputed paper was published by the journal Polar Biology in 2006, and suggests that the “drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues.”

It galvanized the environmental movement that led to the bear’s controversial listing in 2008 as threatened, and it is now protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Although the four dead bears cited in the paper were observed from 1,500 feet during flights over the Beaufort Sea, and the carcasses were never recovered or examined, Gleason told investigators it is likely the creatures drowned in a sudden windstorm that produced 30-knot winds, not for lack of an ice pack.

“We never mentioned global warming in the paper,” Gleason told the investigators, according to the transcript.

“But it’s inferred,” responded investigator Eric May.  “That’s why the world took it up as a global warming tangent.”

Gleason told investigators that reaction to his and Monnett’s paper was overblown and spun out of context.

“I think these sorts of things tend to mushroom, and the interpretation gets popularized,” Gleason said.  “Something very small turns into this big snowball coming down the mountain, and that’s, I think, what happened with this paper.”

Gleason concedes that the study had a major impact on the controversial listing of the bear as an endangered species because of global warming.

“As a side note, talking about my former supervisor, he actually sent me an e-mail at one point saying, ‘You’re the reason polar bears got listed,’” Gleason said.

Monnett now manages $50 million in studies as part of his duties as a wildlife biologist with the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Investigators are also examining Monnet’s procurement of one of those research studies on polar bears conducted by Canada’s University of Alberta, as well as the “disclosure of personal relationships and preparation of the scope of work,” according to a July 29 memo from the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office.

In particular, investigators are asking questions about the peer review work on Monnett’s drowned polar bear paper, which was done by his wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as Andrew Derocher, the lead researcher on the Canadian study under review by the inspector general’s office.

Monnett is being legally defended by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which posted the interviews the inspector general’s office conducted with both scientists on its website.

PEER calls Monnett’s work “groundbreaking research,” and says the investigation is a political attempt to “impugn his observations on polar bears’ vulnerability to retreating sea ice.”

“With each interview, it becomes more outrageous that government funds are being spent on this crackpot probe while paying Dr. Monnett’s salary to sit at home,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of PEER.

“This seven-page paper, which had undergone internal peer review, management review and outside peer review coordinated by journal editors, galvanized scientific and public appreciation for the profound effects that climate change may already be having in the Arctic,” PEER said in another statement in support of Monnett.

Eric Holder’s Justice Department has already declined to pursue any criminal prosecution in the probe, but the scientists still face possible administrative action for any wrongdoing, the inspector general said in the memo.

With investigators suggesting his research is collapsing, Monnett was defensive in the interview, and asked for the inspectors’ credentials to question his work or second-guess his calculations.

For example, there was some confusion as to whether it was three or four dead bears used in the calculation to determine the ratio of survival, and whether Monnett assumed that four swimming bears seen the week earlier were the same polar bears recorded as dead in the next survey.  The statistic in question was the percentage of bears likely to survive when swimming in a storm—Monnett estimated it to be around 25%, whereas investigators put the number at more than 57%.

“Is there a potential we made a mistake, and the peer reviewers didn’t catch it?  Possibly,” Gleason said.

If the scientists had reported the 57% figure, investigator May said, “how people were taking this and exaggerating the results, probably may not have happened in terms of the world taking your study as attributing [the drownings to] global warming.”

After nearly two hours of Monnett defending his work to investigators, Ruch from PEER asked the officials to explain what allegations are being made against Monnett.

May said they are examining the “wrong numbers,” “miscalculations” and “scientific misconduct.”

“Well, that’s not scientific misconduct anyway,” Monnett said.  “If anything, it’s sloppy.”

“I mean, that’s not—I mean, I mean, the level of criticism that they seem to have leveled here, scientific misconduct suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to change it,” Monnett said.

“I sure don’t see any indication of that in what you’re asking me about,” Monnett said.

The actual survey Monnett was conducting when he observed the dead bears in 2004 was the migration of bowhead whales.  Investigators questioned how he later obtained data for a table listing live and dead polar bear sightings from 1987 to 2004.

“So how could you make the statement that no dead polar bears were observed” during that time period? May asked.

“Because we talked to the people that had flown the flights, and they would remember whether they had seen any dead polar bears,” Monnett said.

Asked whether he had any documentation to back that up, Monnett said that he did not.

“Science is about making the best case you can to test your hypothesis,” Monnett said.  “You assemble your arguments and your data, you put it out there, and you see who’s going to knock it down.”

“And surprisingly, nobody, you know, knocked this down in any way.  Everybody was just kind of like, ‘Oh, yeah, four dead polar bears.  Okay, that’s kind of cool,’ ” Monnett said.

Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, a biologist who specializes in endangered species scientific issues for Wildlife Science International, Inc., reviewed Monnett’s paper as well as the inspector general’s interviews for HUMAN EVENTS and said that the authors made unwarranted assumptions and large extrapolations based on a single event.

“They did not know if the polar bears actually drowned, they assumed that they had drowned.  There were no statistical tests, just extrapolations made with no accounting for measurement error,” Ramey said.

“The paper gives the appearance that rigorous surveying was done for polar bears, when it was not,” Ramey said.

“They were flying at 1,500 feet with the purpose of looking for bowhead whales, which are much larger and easier to spot.”

Ramey also says he sees a conflict of interest for Monnett’s wife to be part of the internal peer review, and questioned the awarding of a contract to Derocher, who also participated in the peer review.

“That’s not impartial,” Ramey said.  “It’s really important that peer review be truly independent.  If they can’t be, then everyone has to state their conflict right up front.”

“I think it’s very illustrative of the problems with government research on endangered species, and raises the question as to whether government should be in the business of science,” Ramey said.

Numerous studies contributed to the bear’s listing as a protected species, including the paper on polar bear drowning, which was cited in the Federal Register’s proposed rule.

In making the announcement May 14, 2008, to protect the bear under the Endangered Species Act, the Interior Department said the listing “is based on the best available science, which shows the loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat.”

The Interior Department said it would modify regulatory language “to prevent abuse of this listing to erect a backdoor climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.”

As part of the Endangered Species Act listing, the department said work would continue with scientists to monitor polar bear populations and trends, as well as the effects of oil and gas operations in the Beaufort Sea region.

“Power, money, authority and recognition come with listings on the endangered species list,” Ramey said.

Investigators conducted a second interview with Monnett on Tuesday.  PEER said in a statement afterward that his “2006 peer-reviewed journal article on drowned polar bears remains the focus of the inquiry.”

Myron Ebell​, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that the government is expected to “spend trillions of dollars to save the world from global warming on the basis of what a few scientists say.”

“There needs to be due diligence, and we need to challenge and investigate every single claim.  The public expects that,” Ebell said.  “But we find over and over that shoddy science has been put forward, and in some cases, dishonest and manipulated science, and they say, ‘Trust us,’ ” Ebell said.

“It’s extremely irresponsible.”

Courtesy:  Human Events

__________

1.  While Egypt burns, Obama realizes that being a community organizer sure didn’t prepare him for this.  Like Jimmy Carter, Obama’s lack of leadership and inability to recognize the impact of what is happening will risk that Egypt will go the way of Iran.

2.  Another federal judge has ruled that the ObamaCare law is… well, unconstitutional.  No surprise there.  What did come as a surprise… or should I say “comedy” was the Obama response to the ruling.  They dared to call the court an “activist court”.

3.  The man who predicted that we would be without snow by 2020 now says that all this snow and cold weather is a result of global warming.  It’s so hard to believe anything Al Gore says anymore.

4.  The New York City Council has taken another step toward complete rule of your life.  First came the banning of trans fats, then came the ban of certain sugars, then the threat to regulate sodium, and now… the city council has banned smoking outdoors- no longer can a smoker light up at the beach or park.  I wonder if it’s still legal to have a cook out.

5.  Democrats have achieved what we thought would be the impossible- 43 million Americans are now dependent on foodstamps.  Let’s remember, liberals weigh success by the number of people who they can enroll in government assistance and not by the number they can help to get off.

_______________

-Reports by AccuWeather claim that January will be the coldest in 25 years- This should be a moment of celebration for global warming activist Al Gore.  No doubt he will emerge from hiding to claim credit putting a halt to Earth warming and stopping an eco-disaster.

-Preliminary Census figures claim that 1 of 6 Americans are living in poverty.  That’s over 50 million Americans and a majority of those are 65 and older.

-Blue Cross & Blue Shield of California has said that they are increasing health-care premiums from 35-50% citing the health-care Bill.

-New numbers from Gallup show that just 31 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats in 2010 — a five-point decrease from a year ago and the lowest percentage measured by the polling firm in 22 years.

-Moderate Democratic senators up for re-election in 2012 fear getting swept out of office just like their colleagues did last year, Politico reports. Senate Democrats are now wanting to shift to the right. “I’m already running into it,” Reid’s top deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told Politico in late December. “People say, ‘I’m up in two years.’ And I understand it. It’s part of being a senator and a candidate yourself.”

-Liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne is calling for the media to hold the newly-sworn in Republican House majority accountable for their “expansive rhetoric” as well as “how their ideas translate into policies that affect actual human beings.”- Seriously? She wants to be a journalist now after a 2 year hiatus? Perhaps, E.J. can take the lead by holding Obama accountable for his “expansive rhetoric”. She’ll first have to pull her lips away from his ass.

_________________

Let’s talk about media bias and how the mainstream media delivers the news based on the political designation of the administration or the individual.

First example that comes to mind is the Exxon Valdez oil spill.  The oil spill occurred back in March of 1989 when George H. Bush was President.  Who could forget the evening news reports leading each night with the coverage of the “environmental disaster” and how Bush was “ignoring” efforts or his “ties” to the oil titans.  There are some liberals who want to rewrite history and claim that Bush got a free pass, but those of us who recall the disaster remember the attacks the new President was taking.  Now, let’s compare that to how the liberal media have treated Obama during the BP disaster.  Very little accountability for the President.  No demands for investigating why he’s administration awarded the highest award for safety for this rig.  Tepid demand for him to do more for the clean-up operation.  No calls for investigations into why it took so long for oil skimmers.  No 10 minute a night coverage of oil covered birds and filthy landscape.  Nope.  Very little critical coverage of the President’s handling of the disaster.

Another example.  When George W. Bush was President, the media would “honor” those who died in Iraq, but scrolling their names at the end of every evening newscast.  Yes, the names would slowly go by with the ages posted alongside.  Now anyone with a modicum of commonsense clearly knows that the mainstream media could care little about “honoring” the fallen, this was clearly an attempt to use these dead heroes for political propaganda.   Scroll the names so Americans would see how many have died and they’d lose the stomach to continue to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Today, you would think that no one is dying in Iraq or Afghanistan- no more the scrolling of the names of the fallen “honoring” them.  No longer the daily body count posted in large bold numbers on our tv screens- no, the “honoring” has ceased with a Democrat in office.

And what about the “torture” prison in Guantanamo Bay, remember the monthly visits by the International Red Cross and by members of Congress who reported back about the “conditions”?   Have the visits also ceased or has the media found Guantanamo not that interesting to follow any more?  Aren’t these prisoners the same ones who the media claimed were being held indefinitely and without due process?  Is these less an important story, because Bush isn’t President and Obama is?

Remember the “Great Depression of 1991″ where under George Bush the unemployment rate went to 6.8%.  Night after night we heard about those who were left homeless, those who were starving… saw clips of people standing in unemployment lines, heard story after story about how neighbors and family members had lost their jobs… however, with 9.5% unemployment, record number of foreclosures, record number of bankruptcies, record number on foodstamps, and a record number on government assistance, we hardly hear or see anything in the mainstream media that compares to the coverage of 1991.  Liberals will tell you that Obama inherited a recession and therefore should not be covered in the same way that George H. Bush was.  Ok, so let recall the reaction and coverage by the mainstream media of George W. Bush in 2003 when he inherited a recession from Clinton.  The average unemployment rate was 6.0% in 2003 and the mainstream media was relentless in its coverage of how awful things were for the American people.

Let’s look at the coverage of former Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.  This woman is ripped apart each night in the media and yet, “suck on this” Al Gore with recent revelations that he sexually harassed a handful of women has gone virtually ignored.  When revelations of John Edwards emerged, the medias excuse for not covering it as much as it did the story of Mark Sanford was that John Edwards was a “private citizen” with “no further political aspirations”.  With Sarah Palin, we not only hear critical things about her, but the media sensationalizes stories about her children.  Why?  Is Al Gore not trying to impact policy?  Was he not the former senior Senator from Tennessee? The two-time Presidential Candidate?  The Vice President of the United States for 8 years?  The Democrat Presidential nominee who lost becoming President by 350 votes?  The Nobel Peace Prize Winner?  Can we explain the media coverage of Sarah Palin and her family and the total lack of coverage regarding Al Gore and his massage escapades?  Al Gore’s alleged treatment of women as nothing more than pieces of meat who he can forcefully demand sex from does not seem to merit coverage from the mainstream media.  We can be sure that had Al Gore been a Republican, we would still be reading and hearing about it today.

It comes as no surprise that the American public would have a negative view of the Republican Party especially when there is such a bias in the way that Republicans and Democrats are covered.  I would say, if the Democrats were covered in the same manner as Republicans or Republicans in the same manner as Democrats, one could argue that Republicans would retain a sizable majority in Congress and would easily win the Presidency.  If the media is truly to be trusted, it must first and foremost cover the news in a fair and equitable manner.  The importance of the media to our society is unquestionable and therefore they must present the facts and news in an unbiased manner and allow a well-informed citizenry to decide which course or direction it wishes to take.  It is not the job of the media to hide facts, under report, bury stories, or skew in an effort to help elect a party that they best affiliate with.  The public depends on them as an honest source of information to make informed decisions.

_____________

Let’s see if the mainstream media will cover this story of Gore throwing a woman down and trying to force her into sex.  It’s interesting the lack of attention that this story is getting despite Gore being the vice-president for 8 years, a Senator, a Presidential candidate, a Nobel peace prize winner, and leading spokesman for global warming.  Maybe the mainstream media is still focusing on that “insignificant former governor of Alaska”.  Strange how we kept hearing about rumors of Sarah Palin’s alleged troubled marriage and of alleged infidelity, but a police report on Gore’s allege sexual assault is all but ignored.  Double standard?

According to a 73-page “Confidential Special Report” made public by authorities Wednesday, the “licensed massage therapist” stated she was summoned to a suite at the upscale Lucia Hotel at the request of a guest, where “during the course of this massage session Al Gore did sexually assault me in his room.”

In a detailed statement given to police more than two years after the alleged incident the woman described her surprise at arriving for the VIP massage appointment to find Al Gore drinking beer and opening his arms in a hug saying “Call Me Al.”

But she said her VIP client later turned “angry and threatening” when she resisted Gore’s efforts to force her hand to his inner thigh and lower abdominal area during the massage and then attempted to rip her clothes as she struggled against him, she told police.

Gore “flipped me flat on my back and threw his whole body face down over atop me pinning me down and outweighing me by quite a bit,” injuring her back and legs, she claimed. “He kept trying to have sex with me,” said the woman, who described the situation as “frightening.”

According to the report, the woman said Gore booked the appointment using the pseudonym “Mr. Stone.”

In a statement accompanying the report, Portland Police said that after initially refusing to cooperate in early 2007, the masseuse returned in 2009, finally offering to be interviewed by investigators, bringing a prepared statement and the clothes she said she had worn that night as evidence.

You can read the full 73 page police report here.  Be warned,  it is very detailed and graphic.

_______

Oregonlive.com

The Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office confirmed today that a woman who alleged unwanted sexual contact by Al Gore reported it to police in 2006, and the prosecutor’s office was briefed by the Portland Police Bureau in late 2006 and January 2007.

“We were told the woman was not willing to be interviewed by the Portland Police Bureau and did not want a criminal investigation to proceed,’’ Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk said, in a prepared statement.

Today, as the National Enquirer reported that it had interviewed a Portland masseuse who complained of unwanted sexual contact by the former vice president at the Hotel Lucia on Oct. 24, 2006, the district attorney’s office was notified that the Portland Police Bureau had conducted a further investigation of the allegation in 2009.

“If the complainant and the Portland Police Bureau wish to pursue the possibility of a criminal prosecution, additional investigation by the Bureau will be necessary and will be discussed with the Portland Police Bureau,’’ Schrunk said, in his statement.

Gore family spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said the former vice president has no comment. Gore and his wife announced June 1 they were separating.

At the time, according to a Portland police 2007 report, the woman reported the encounter several weeks after the incident. Portland Detective Cheryl Waddell said the woman cancelled interview appointments three times, and declined police investigation, saying a civil case would be pursued.

Portland police Sgt. Rich Austria said the woman’s lawyer had contacted the U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Oregon State Police “in an attempt to have a larger law enforcement agency investigate this case. All above agencies declined and referred him to the agency of jurisdiction where the alleged crime occurred,” Waddell wrote in her report.

Waddell was assigned the case Dec. 19, 2006. By 2007, the woman or her attorney told police the case was going to be handled civilly.

“This case is exceptionally cleared” Waddell wrote in her report, noting the complainant refuses to cooperate with the investigation or even report a crime.

Randall Vogt, a Pearl District attorney specialized in sexual misconduct cases, said he represented the masseuse in 2006 after she claimed Vice-President Al Gore sexually attacked her during a massage.

He declined to identify the woman and said they had not been in touch since her original claim was investigated by Portland Police.

“That file was closed and put to bed and forgotten,” Vogt said. “She and I parted on friendly terms as best I can recall.”

Vogt said he was not aware that his former client reactivated her claims against Gore last year, prompting police to reinvestigate the allegations.

There’s no evidence a civil suit had been filed.

In January 2009, the woman returned to Portland police and said she wanted to give a statement. Detective Molly Daul and a victim advocate from the sexual assault unit met with the woman. She reported that she was repeatedly subjected to unwanted sexual touching while in his presence.

She reported she still had clothes that she had worn during the encounter, but detectives never collected them as evidecne “because they did not feel there was any evidentiary value to the clothing” given the description of what she said had occurred.

After interviewing the woman, the Police Bureau provided additional counseling services through its victim advocate program. The case was not investigated further “because detectives concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations.

In June 2010, the woman called police, asked for a copy of her statement, and asked if she could edit it. She also advised the bureau she was going to take the case to the media.

In 2007 or 2008, then Portland Tribune reporter Nick Budnick made a public records request for the Portland police report, obtained it but the newspaper did not run a story.

Statute of limitations for third-degree sex abuse, which is the classification Portland police gave to the complaint in 2006 and 2007, is four years after the commission of the crime.

However, if the accused is not an inhabitant or usually resident in the state, then the statute of limitations is extended for a maximum of three years. So in this case, the statute of limitations would not run out until 2013.

Where there’s smoke there’s fire.  I have very little doubt that Gore didn’t dip into his bank account and paid off that woman and that’s why she refused to prosecute.  Let’s remember, this is the same Al Gore who criticized Bill Clinton for his behavior with Monica Lewinsky.

_____________

Hey, friends and readers, I apologize for being away and not posting.  My ex boyfriend came to visit and I was spending a few days with him and my current boyfriend.  It was funny, yesterday the three of us drove to Clay Aiken’s subdivision and checked out all the mansions.  I’m sure Clay would have loved to for the three of us to knock on his door.  It looks like Clay is trying to hide the view of his house from the street.  It looks like landscapers have planted lots of leyland cyprus, Japanese maple, and various other trees and vegetation.

So let’s talk about some other things.  Obama’s approval has dropped. Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. That’s the lowest level of approval yet recorded for this president. Fifty-seven percent (57%) now disapprove. Those are the lowest ratings yet recorded for this president. The president’s approval rating has held steady in the 46% – 47% range for six months and it remains to be seen whether this new low is merely statistical noise or the start of a lasting change.

Star Magazine reports Al Gore’s split from wife Tipper after 40 years of marriage was a shock to everyone who thought theirs was the ideal marriage. Now Star can exclusively reveal that the former Vice President was having an affair with Larry David’s ex-wife — for the past two years! In the June 28 issue of Star, on sale Wednesday, Star reports that Al and Tipper’s breakup didn’t come as much of a surprise to one Hollywood player — Laurie David. Star has learned that Al has been having an affair with Laurie, who divorced Seinfeld creator and Curb Your Enthusiasm star Larry David in 2007 amidst reports she was cheating with the caretaker of their Martha’s Vineyard summer home.

While Obama and the Democrats try to regulate the banks and blame them for the failure that was perpetuated by the government, we learn that government managed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could eventually be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and face the ignominy of trading on the pink sheets after a U.S. government takeover destroyed most of the value of their common stock. Remember, Democrats want the government to run health-care.

So what did people think about Obama’s first oval office address? Let’s read some of the comments by the unbiased and non-racist MSNBC:

Olbermann: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

Matthews: “No direction.”

Howard Fineman: “He wasn’t specific enough.”

Olbermann: “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a “commander-in-chief.”

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. “I’ll barf if he does it one more time.”

Matthews: “A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.”

Matthews: “I don’t sense executive command.”

Ouch, that was harsh.

_______________

Al Gore's Nashville Home- check out the SUV's

Al Gore's Nashville Mansion

We recently learned that Al and Tipper Gore are separating and that means the couple will eventually have to split their assets.  When Al and Tipper Gore left the White House in 2001 the couples estimated worth was between $1-$2 million.  Nine years later, Al and Tipper are worth between $100 and $200 million.  There’s a lot of money in scaring people into believing that man is destroying the Earth and we’re all going to die.

Gore has been able to parlay his “concern” for the environment and global warming into a fortune- making him one of the wealthiest men in America… yes one of the same type of people liberals attack as evil.  There are exceptions for rich liberals, however.  You’re not evil if you make your money as a modern day snake oil salesman, scaring people with false science.

Concerned about the environment, Gore recently purchased an $8.8 million ocean-view villa in the gated community of Montecito, California. The 6,500-square-foot villa tucked on one-and-a-half acres of grounds includes a swimming pool, a spa, fountains, five bedrooms and nine baths.  No carbon footprint there- Gore purchases “carbon exchanges” from one of his companies so he’s allowed to “pollute”.  But wait, there’s more.

Gore also owns a multimillion-dollar home in Nashville, Tenn., a condo in San Francisco in addition to their home in the Washington area, an Arlington Tudor. They bought a 100-foot houseboat named, aptly, Bio-Solar One in 2008. And they own a farm in Carthage, Tenn., that includes a zinc mine.  For someone so concerned about global warming and a “carbon footprint”, the man sure owns a lot of homes that he has to heat and cool.

Hypocrisy?  Of course.  Al Gore is a liberal.

Click here to see Al Gore’s Montecito Villa.

_____________

Former Vice President Al Gore may have narrated an Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, but he appears to be a little cool toward the camera for a speech in North Carolina.

A Gore aide said Tuesday that media members will only be allowed to record video and audio of the first five minutes of Gore’s talk at Duke University on April 8. Photography will also be limited. Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said the restrictions are standard for his talks but she wouldn’t say why they are in place.

Aren’t these restriction a bit odd for a man who claims that the world will come to an end if something isn’t done about man-made global warming?  Like most Progressive Socialist, Al Gore doesn’t like being challenged nor does he like his speeches scrutinized.  Perhaps the limitations are in place so that Gore can continue spewing the untruths that he normally delivers in these speeches despite having been told that his “facts” are incorrect.

_____________