Court-ordered homelessness

Court-ordered homelessness

There is a scam in the UK (and I have heard of this happening in Canada as well) that seems to have been going on for some time: judges are allowing people’s homes to be taken under bankruptcy proceedings held in SECRET. NO BANKRUPTCY IS FILED! Those who complain too much are considered “vexatious litigants” and are punished.

One lady said she returned from a holiday and her mansion had been sold.

She eventually lost all of her real estate.

Others have been deemed “insane” by psychologists and imprisoned. My German contacts have mentioned similar instances of people being declared “insane” in Germany and locked up there.

As founding chairman of Lancaster-York Non-Custodial Parents, I can attest that judges in “family” court in those areas also did things that were totally illegal and got away with them, including awarding a home to a wife in a divorce proceeding without her having requested this. A lawyer told me that story. He was the husband who lost the home!

But I heard hundreds of other stories that convinced me that justice in the traditional sense of the word is a dying concept in the West, being replaced as it is by a “social justice” system under which members of certain interest groups can steal our property at will through legal procedures on the pretext of being “victims” of society. The lawyers, judges and other government officials reap big rewards from this web of complicity.

There is legislation afoot in the US that would also make it possible for the “legal” system to steal property here as well under false bankruptcy and other proceedings that are completely un-Constitutional. The owners would have no recourse to regain their homes.

The globalists, elitists, the Left, the “liberals,” the progressives (whatever you choose to call this criminal syndicate) in the West (whether the US or Canada or Europe) wants all dissenters “put away,” one way or another.

Scroll down and view as many of the video clips as you can on this amazing page:


Thank you and God bless,

Don Hank

The reason for the treason

The reason for the treason

By Don Hank

America awoke to socialism this morning. The globalist Left has struck: In the midst of our worst ever economic downturn, the Old Order: health insurance you can’t afford personally, has been replaced by the New Order: health insurance we can’t afford collectively.

We are closer to slavery now and frightened people are asking: will we ever be free again?

Not if we remain ignorant.

The only way the last of the free peoples on earth can still hope to defeat our enemy the globalist Left (in all political parties) at this late hour is

1 — to recognize that the Left may vary superficially over geography and time but under the surface it is essentially the same everywhere all the time,

2 — to study the enemy’s past actions so that we know what to expect, and then

3 — develop strategies based on what we learn about this peculiar phenomenon.

I am now reading two treatises that I strongly recommend for those who wish to understand the destruction of our Western culture, society, democratic systems and economy:

Russian dissident and Soviet Academy of Sciences member Igor Shafarevich’s “The Socialist Phenomenon”:

Shafarevich traces the earliest socialist thought back to Plato and then to the Christian heretics of the 13th century and beyond.

Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) by Epoch Times

Though the Chinese analysts wrote this years ago, the salient “inherited” traits of the CCP that they describe match up perfectly with those of the Western Left. I am astounded to see how all of this resembles the kind of governance we are seeing throughout the Western world, in our “national” governments and in the intergovernmental entities like the EU, UN and their spinoffs. Here is their list of the Left’s inherited traits (along with corresponding examples from today’s Western world):

deceit (man made global warming and carbon credit scam, Obama’s suspicious birth certificate and claim that taxes would not increase for the middle clase, the Feds insisting we needed a bailout for their rich friends to “save” us),

incitement (class hatred through special privileges for minorities, eg, affirmative action, free college for illegal aliens, Liberation Theology),

unleashing the scum of society (ACORN, La Raza, millions of illegal-alien criminals loose in the US),

espionage and infiltration (the GOP is now so “progressive” it is hardly distinguishable from the Democrat Party in many ways. Arlen Specter’s defection is dramatic evidence of how the Left plants infiltrators. Vladimir Bukovsky, a Soviet dissident, says he saw Russian documentation showing that the current form of the European Union was a Soviet idea that was implemented by stealth in Europe at the instigation of Soviet operatives),

sowing dissension (Tea Party and true conservatives vs the RINOs, who now control the GOP),

disintegration and replacement (there are virtually no functional US borders and we treat illegal aliens as though they were citizens, with free medical care, education, welfare, etc. European countries now fly the EU flag instead of their own national flags. European “national” legislation tracks EU legislation, hostile Muslims fill their cities. The whole of Western culture is disintegrating and being replaced).

Yesterday a German friend wrote me pondering why the EU is doing so much to destroy everything. He has studied the issue extensively, but said he couldn’t really figure it out. Neither can my UK friends. What would be the motive of the “elites” in destroying the West?

I had no response and found myself asking for God’s guidance and wisdom.

Then last night, I was reading a chapter of Shafarevich’s book about the socialist “Christian” heretics of the 14th and 15th centuries who burned churches, slaughtered the opposition, banned marriage, destroyed and confiscated property. At different times they carried out their murder and plunder unopposed. The reason given for their unnecessarily cruel and blood thirsty behavior was chilling from today’s perspective, because it shows that nothing substantive has changed since then. The reason for the insanity, identified by the authors based on historical records:

to destroy the old order and all traditions.

Then today I was reading the second chapter of the Nine Commentaries linked above, in reference to the Chinese communists. According to the Chinese dissident authors, the motive of the Chinese communists for killing millions of their countrymen and destroying their country was:

All traditions and the old order must be destroyed

This a.m. I was reading the local paper about how Panama is cashing in on carbon credits. The EU is paying them to build hydroelectric plants because they don’t burn coal.

But here is some background:

1 — Europeans are being snookered into paying millionaire investors here in Panama to carry out plans they already intended to implement. There is plenty of water in the rivers and hydroelectric power is all Panama has ever known. No coal fired plants have ever been used. In other words, the entrepreneurs needed no further incentive to build the hydroelectric plants because Panama needed them anyway. NOTHING was accomplished by making these payments (like the Corus Redcar scam in the UK, which cost 7,400 jobs and 1 billion pounds). It was money thrown away at a time when Europe is in a dire economic crisis.

2 — The people building the plant are rich entrepreneurs. No money is being sent to this “Third World” country that will help the poor here. In fact, the local papers complain that there is no law stipulating that the money be used to “help the community.” It is going from the pockets of strapped European workers into the bank accounts of rich Panamanians.

3 — Panama is already one of the richest countries in the region, possibly the banking center of Latin America, and on top of that, because of its common sense lending practices, has very low indebtedness and no banking crisis, quite unlike the European countries acting as “rich” benefactors!

The only reason for the carbon credit scam on top of a financial and economic crisis can be total destruction of the old order in Europe including its economy.

This is the reason behind everything. Even the rich bankers involved in the destruction of our Western economies don’t care even about themselves and their own fortunes and families as much as they care about our destruction. The main reason seems to be that they think there are too many of us. WE, the OLD GENERATION and our ways, must be exterminated at all costs to suit their mad designs!

God help us.

And indeed, He is our only help. The underlying reason behind this is truly a spiritual one. There can be all kinds of explanations offered as to why people would want to destroy all things traditional, including family. But only a spiritual one satisfies totally when you consider the suicidal nature of the onslaught, that is, the damage they do to themselves and their indifference to the poor and downtrodden. Thus, objectively speaking, in view of the fact that nothing is broken and needs fixed, the best explanation is that there really is a Satan, as this article on Karl Marx suggests:

But in a spiritual sense, why, if God is real, does He allow all the evil and the pain and suffering for the little guy?

The West needs a dramatic demonstration of just why the Left and the global elite have nothing to offer but lies and pain. Likewise we need a convincing demonstration that spiritual evil cannot be combated by material means. The existence of such sheer senseless evil everywhere suggests that we need God. More importantly, this evidence of the existence of evil on the spiritual plane – pure gratuitous evil for its own sake – is, by the same token, and simultaneously, evidence of the existence of a God who wants to make it all better and heal us, if only we will submit to His guidance.

No better way of showing Himself could ever have been devised than to present such strong evidence of the existence of evil. No stronger motive for accepting our spiritual Savior could have been floated than that of overcoming this evil to save ourselves, first as a purely material motive and then as a spiritual one. We ought to thank God for this while taking steps to arrest the damage and punish the evil doers.

Instead we go on killing the unborn, deliberately and pointedly flouting the scriptures, openly celebrating sexual promiscuity, promoting same-sex “marriage”, unwed motherhood, divorce, drug abuse, atheism, “religious” Leftism, disenfranchisement of good and decent people, and all the rest. Why?

Because we have been told, again: “you will not surely die.”

It’s the same lie as always and we bought it again.

Listen to anti-RINO candidate John Wayne Tucker Friday

Hi All,

First, thank you to all those who tuned in last Friday and heard my interview with JD Hayworth. It was a great show, and JD was an absolutely wonderful and unforgettable guest. I hope to have him back. More and more Arizonans are getting behind JD as the man who can put John McCain out to pasture. In this interview, JD pulled a lot of facts out of his hat about illegal immigration and what it is costing America. He is definitely no Beltway insider!

For my next broadcast, I have lined up an interview with John Wayne Tucker tomorrow, Friday, March 12th, 2010, at 8-9 pm Pacific Time (11:00-12:00 est).

John Wayne Tucker is a rock-ribbed conservative candidate running for Congress in Missouri’s 3rd District. Tucker has been a regular Guest on the program. His main challenge is winning the primary against RINO insider, Ed Martin of the Matt Blunt Email Scandal. Martin was then-Gov. Blunt’s Chief of Staff and was fired because of his involvement, yet he was never indicted nor forced to disclose who Gov. Blunt was protecting. Blunt (who had been a strong anti-Invasion advocate as Governor and had possible Presidential aspirations) did not run for re-election and his career was ruined as a homosexual tryst was rumored to be what was covered up. 

Tucker is not a politician but a former Southern Baptist minister and schoolteacher who ran against Democrat Rep. Carnahan in 2008 and lost. The RNC and MRP have refused to back Tucker because he is a conservative and doesn’t have the big money behind him that Martin does. Tucker decided to run as a Republican despite this fact. The Missouri primary is August 3rd.


Don’t miss J.D. Hayworth interview tomorrow (Fri. March 5)

Hear J.D. Hayworth interview tomorrow

I have said before that defeating RINO John McCain is the biggest, most important job for the grassroots in America. That is because the grassroots rarely gets a chance to pick a non-RINO in the primaries. Sure, you defeated the red-eyed liberal Martha Coakley in MA, but you wound up with RINO Scott Brown, who turned right around and spit in your eye, enthusiastically voting for the phony Obama jobs bill. Anyone listening to Scott’s campaign speeches knew it would happen eventually.

But knocking out John McCain in the Senate, now that’s a different kettle of fish.

That’s where Dave Levine comes in.

Dave is doing a job most Americans won’t do and he’s not even Mexican!

Unlike any other radio host I know of, Dave does major, serious investigation to find candidates for national office who are conservative constitutionalists and, in particular, are non-RINOs – that is, strongly oppose illegal immigration, are for law and order, solidly moral and generally believe the Constitution means what it says. Dave vets them personally by actually contacting their campaign, eventually getting through to the big guys themselves and asking them tough questions.

Dave is pleased to present for you an interview with J.D. Hayworth tomorrow, Friday March 5, 2010, at 8-9 pm Pacific Time (11:00-12:00 EST). J.D. is the most serious challenger RINO John McCain has to contend with, and according to Dave, is a real constitutionalist and wants to stop illegal immigration. Now let’s not get too bogged down here arguing over details and give this one to McCain. I can’t think of anyone who will hurt America more than John McCain (e.g., the un-Constitutional McCain-Feingold, which was struck down by the Supreme Court, McCain’s latest attempt to regulate over the counter vitamin supplements and health foods, and the McCain-Kennedy amnesty scheme.  Poison for American freedom).

And if you think the “conservative” media are holding their own in the area of illegal immigration, think again. Almost no one in the mainstream “conservative” media (almost 100% neocon) and practically no one in the New Media any more will ask a candidate their views on illegal immigration. That topic is almost dead, thanks to our inattention and their stealth.

Yet, ironically, the grassroots are more and more concerned about US sovereignty, i.e., border control and the Invasion.

Dave Levine never misses an opportunity to ask his candidates about this and other key issues the media have all but abandoned.

That is why I am proud to know Dave and to support his show.

Check out Dave’s online show tomorrow here:

To listen online, click on The Micro Effect link above, scroll down to where it says “Additional Audio Feeds Are Here” and select one of the three WMP options – 8, 16 or 24 kbps.

To call the Dave Levine Show toll-free and speak with JD Hayworth, call (888) 747-1968

The show can also be heard on some small (low power) FM stations across the country that are listed at

Donate generously to The Dave Levine show here.

If you want to be a sponsor, let me know at or contact Dave at

Don Hank

Wilders’ persecution boosts Freedom Party

Wilders’ Freedom Party gaining ground in Holland

There is only one group strong enough and rich enough to destroy the Left and that is the Left itself. And they do it every time, because unlike normal people, lefties believe in their own immortality and the historical inevitability of their hare-brained utopian agendas.

So, believing that all reasonable people everywhere agree with them, they inevitably get careless and start stripping people of their God-given rights, such as the right to speak one’s mind. Censorship is a sure-fire way to ultimately lose and give all the power to your opponent!

What the below-linked article fails to mention is that Geert wilders is facing trial soon for “incitement” or offending Muslims, because of his now-famous anti-Koran video “Fitna”.

He’s got a lot of people on his side there, Dutch people who have seen what Muslims do to their society — such as the murder of film maker Theo Van Gogh, another outspoken skeptic of Muslim immigration policies. No amount of political power can erase that outrage from people’s minds.

Keep censoring, Lefties. You have found the enemy (psst: he is YOU. Yeah).

Don Hank

Late breaking:

The “Cyber security” bill HR4061 just passed the House. It is the biggest threat to the Internet in the US, although Europe now controls the Net, and there is talk of censorship there. Do not expect to continue to use the Net freely without a MAJOR fight. How to fight?

Call your senators and tell them this will not fly. The Internet is not a threat to America. Internet chatter is monitored to alert us of threats. If we censor that chatter, no more surveillance.

Open borders are the main threat to our security. Ask them where that fence is.

Is it wrong for Christians to judge?

by Richard Hess

I recently found a text that I had periodically been looking for for quite awhile. I hear people all the time using one of the verses or quotes of Jesus from the “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew ch 7 regarding judging. Matthew 7:1  ¶Judge not, that ye be not judged.

In using this verse to squash someones judgment of anothers person or action, or in defense of someone pronouncing judgment on us, is many times taken out of context.

If we look at Gods original commands in the book of Leviticus we get another perspective.

Leviticus 19:15  Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Did Jesus go contrary to His Fathers will? I don’t think so. We cannot throw the perverbial baby out with the bath water and say that we are not to judge anyone in any situation because as God commanded, we are to “judge righteously” or “rightly”.

Judgment was to be blind to a persons wealth or lack therof as well as blind to their status and power in society or lack therof as well.

IMHO it is wrong for us as God’s people to avoid judgment of others for any and all reasons.  

1 Corinthians 6:1  ¶Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2  Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3  Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4  If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

Albeit this does not give us free reign to go around pronouncing judgment on everyone….. but not all judgment is wrong.

Book review: Edmund Burke by Dennis O’Keeffe

Edmund Burke by Dennis O’Keeffe

Continuum, New York and London 2010


Edited by John Meadowcroft,

In this eminently readable, intellectually stimulating and compact volume Professor Dennis O’Keeffe does an excellent job of introducing us to Edmund Burke, his life and family, the essence of his most notable works, his parliamentary career and manifesto writing and how apparent contradictions in his own life and philosophy are reconciled in his intellectual and political development.

“No one can read the Burke of Liberty and the Burke of Authority without feeling that here was the same man pursuing the same ends.” wrote Winston Churchill another Conservative who took his own Burkean internal conflicts (between landed conservatism and the power of the Empire on the one hand which he sought to preserve and individual emancipation and free trade which he promoted) to the point of twice “crossing the floor” in party allegiance.

In the case of Edmund Burke there were the additional conflicts of an Irish Catholic origin (although his father had converted to Anglicanism some 9 years before Edmund’s birth) and his protests at the demands by the protestant Irish Parliament of Irish Catholics on the one hand and on the other his Quaker education from the age of 12, his attendance at the Protestant Trinity College Dublin and his life long Anglicanism and admiration of the English Protestant polity based on the 1689 settlement and the preservation of the British Empire. The latter however never prevented him from espousing (for their time) radical views about slavery, economic corruption in India, discriminatory legislation in Ireland and sympathy for American Colonists whose freedom-loving independence of nature he identified as being too similar to their cousins in Britain for conflict to be a wise course of action.

Like most solidly based intellectual Conservatives Burke began his political life with an interest in radical thought, testing and probing the foundations of a social and economic structure which he would ultimately help to reform and defend – dissecting in Burke’s case the advances of the Enlightenment into the welcome principles of freedom of thought while rejecting the arid abstractions of excessive rationalism. Like my late friend Sir Alfred Sherman who saw “scientific” Marxism as a “self delusion beyond repair” and became a leading creator of the classical liberal Conservatism of the Thatcher Government so Burke saw that the hubris of de haut en bas French Enlightenment philosophes had led not only to the bloody excesses of the French Revolution but would, as he predicted, lead to the rise of tyrants and bloody revolutions on a vaster international scale in future centuries.

As Sherman ended his political journey fusing classical liberal thought with Conservative principles (a set of principles which even the Labour Government did not dare overtly to unravel) so Burke – having started by editing at Trinity College “The Reformer” and in 1756 writing A Vindication of Natural Society containing ideas hostile to the Church and the political order of the day – ultimately became a philosophical and political pillar of the growing British Empire.

Even at his most critical Burke always sought political balance, seeking to reform and preserve rather than to petulantly tear down for he saw in a just “natural development” of power in proportion to responsibility that social and economic progress which the totalitarian revolutionaries would for ever exclude as they swept aside not only religious and aristocratic leadership but religious and social foundations. With his cousin William Burke he wrote in 1757 “An Account of the European Settlements in America” in which he praised the “independence” of the “ordinary sort”, the free trade which allowed them to flourish and their aristocratic leadership – all ensuing, Burke thought, from the 1689 Settlement which provided a healthy balance between Government, Monarchy and Parliament whose sole justification was its accountability to the people. How Burke would have condemned those 20th century British Parliamentarians who bypassed the true sovereigns in European Treaty Law to undermine their Parliament and nation!

It was in that vein that he wrote in 1770 (having previously formed the “New Whigs” from both Tory and Whig dissidents and writing their manifesto) “Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents” opposing George III’s Royal encroachment on Government. We must note how that Crown Prerogative has nowadays been usurped by successive British Governments under Treaty Law to sign away the voters sovereign rights. “The Commons answered to the People and not the King”, was the essence of Burke’s attack then – just as today the democratic nationists seek to re-assert the power of the true sovereigns (the people) over an out of control political class which delegated powers to alien control and foreign jurisdiction. Burke wrote:

“The House of Commons can never be a control on other parts of             Government unless they are controlled themselves by their constituents and unless these constituents possess some right in the choice of that Housewhich it is not in the power of that house to take away.”

Since the late 1960s the elected representatives of the British people have conspired to do just that. They have usurped the power of the people as represented in Parliament and transferred most decision making to a different legislature and judiciary through confusing, covert and unconstitutional means: Crown prerogative power, treaty law, administrative law, delegated powers and statutory instruments – all designed to bypass the representatives of the people. And how successful they have been! Burke who predicted the Napoleons, Hitlers and Stalins of future centuries would have immediately grasped the more covert and insidious revolutionary aims of Heath, Clarke and Howe, Mitterand, Kohl and Delors as they sacrificed the stability of nationhood on the altar of the corporatist Euro-State!

Burke would I think also have instinctively understood the nature of corporatism – that socialist form of capitalism which underpins both the supranational collective of the Euro-State and the philosophy of “World Government”. When we consider his radical attacks on corporate corruption in India, the encroachment on religious freedom in Ireland by the State and the taxation of the American colonists we see an instinctive rejection of State/corporate power but a defence of nationhood – albeit overseen (in his day) by a benign imperial power. O’Keeffe points out that Burke totally rejected all appeals to Jacobinism or Napoleonism to rectify any injustices. He would have been perhaps most supportive of the more modern idea of “imperial trusteeship” or the idea (if not the reality) of the modern British Commonwealth.

Burke is best know for his 1790 work Reflections on the Revolution in France and his critique of the rootless rationalism of many Enlightenment philosophers which underpinned, as he saw it, the extreme dismissal of the past and hence the inevitable extreme and bloody consequences. By rejecting the whole in revolutionary fervour the French, said Burke:

“chose to act as if you had never been moulded into civil society and had everything to begin anew… despising everything that belonged to you.”

In effect they engaged not just in destruction but in self-destruction, kicking away the historical platform on which the reformer would base his reforms. O’Keeffe contrasts the optimism of the Liberal Benjamin Constant (who sought to look beyond the excesses of the revolution to an idealistic legacy) with Burke who saw only an orgy of destruction which would feed on its own irrationality and have a permanent deleterious effect on political discourse and ideas.

For Burke the irrational blood letting was ironically caused by an arid rationality. He condemned Voltaire’s anti Christian form of Enlightenment and especially Rousseau’s “general will” and the implicit consent of individuals to a governed society.

“We are not the converts of Rousseau. We are not the disciples of Voltaire……. Atheists are not our preachers: madmen are not our lawgivers”

Burke was right to foresee the fruits of the supposed “reason” of the French Revolution transformed into further brutalities. For 19th century Marxism, as O’Keeffe notes, added “science” to their “rational” certainties and forged a more efficient killing machine. We must be thankful for the resurgence of a new (however tenuous) liberal order to blow away the “scientism” (Hayek) of Marx’s children and establish a philosophy of an Open Society (Popper) for what prosperity and democratic freedoms we now enjoy.

Burke was equally suspicious of “new money” and the industrial and financial worlds which were taking over from landed wealth but O’Keeffe rightly surmises that in time Burke would surely, as a life long reformer, have recognised the advances afforded by industrial development – not least I suggest in employing the landed poor (as the agricultural revolution made their labour redundant) and the slaves for whose freedom Burke had himself campaigned. He would also have appreciated the at least partly successful modern attempts to combine the fruits of Conservative morality and property rights with the liberal virtues of individualism, entrepreneurship and free trade in the 1980s and 1990s.

Burke’s admiration of all things English arose out of his appreciation of the Rule of Law, its gradual Constitutional development (without the equivalent of a French revolution) the balance of powers between nobles, monarchy and Commons, an aristocracy constrained by constitution, the possibility of upward social mobility and the Empire (“Without Freedom it would not be the British Empire” he said.) Burke opposed “any abstract plan of Government or of freedom” – so he would undoubtedly have seen the modern concentration on “human rights” (which unlike freedoms are defined by the rulers, always imperfectly and incompletely and those who define can also take away!) and he would not have been surprised to see that the old Soviet tyranny had no end of stipulated “rights” nor that the builders of “Europe” have used human “rights” and an artificial “citizenship” to undermine the freedom of and freedoms within the nation states.

This excellent volume concludes with a series of summaries of how Burke would have seen and judged the modern political world. “Under Burkean Eyes: Burke and Our present blessings and woes” both seeks to bring Burke up to date and uses practical examples to illustrate his overall philosophy. This part of the book is of course partly surmise and extrapolation and is open to critique but it is a most stimulating provocation to Burkean thought.

O’Keeffe seeks to apply Burke’s “clear feet on the ground reasonableness” to inter alia the crudity of modern political discourse, the West’s triumphalism, the superiority of capitalist economics, the new rise of India, the fatalism of Islam and socialism, Rousseauian Green Movements and man made global warming and the attack on the family – an excellent introduction (as is the entire volume) to the modern relevance of Edmund Burke.

Rodney Atkinson

February 2010

Rodney Atkinson is a political economist and businessman, a former Merchant Banker, Academic and adviser to Ministers in the Thatcher Government. He is a Visiting Fellow at the University of Buckingham and the author of, inter alia,  Europe’s Full Circle and The Emancipated Society which proposed a fusion of Conservative and Classical Liberal thought on the basis of emancipated versus dependent societies.

Global warming: the hard, cold facts

A chill on global warming hysteria

By Don Hank

Al Gore never quits. He has now written an article for the New York Times turning up the heat on the global warming hysteria.

There is no science in the article, and even a low-key allusion to the fraud perpetrated by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which deliberately ignored data pointing to global cooling and presented the fraudulent “hockey stick chart” to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) as bona fide.

The climate change propagandists maintain that the actual data on which the dire Gore’ian predictions are based are available on the internet and therefore they weren’t really hiding anything. Of course, security experts tell us the safest place to hide something in the home is right out in the open. The Left has long mastered this technique.

But they are right, after all. The data are there for everyone to examine.

But there are at least 2 reasons you aren’t finding them.

1 – The warming-hysterical mainstream media aren’t about to besmirch themselves by pointing out the actual temperature trends, since global cooling is evident at the darnedest places.

2 –  Many conservatives are loathe to dedicate the study time needed to understand the issue.

Their intellectual laziness is an expensive mistake, because it is obvious to anyone who has taken even a cursory look at the issue, that “global warming” is all about bilking the world’s working stiffs out of even more money with a universal carbon tax and scams like the one perpetrated in the UK, where 1,700 people lost their jobs and almost a billion pounds in “carbon offset” cash was or will be paid to close down the Corus Redcar steel plant and move it to India, where supposedly less carbon will be emitted thanks to new technology. Excuse us, but couldn’t the new environmentally friendlier technology have been introduced in the UK instead of firing all those people and stealing a billion pounds from them?

But the real kicker is that the head of the Indian company (Tata) receiving the taxpayer’s hard earned cash is also the head of the IPCC, where the “carbon offset” scam originated – a clear cut conflict of interests. That’s illegal and would give these newly unemployed Redcar employees a perfect basis for a lawsuit. I would strongly urge them to aggressively pursue their interests in court.

So to set the record straight, here are some real data, collected by real scientists showing how unreal “global warming” really is:

1-Recent arctic data (up to 2009) show cooling and more extensive sea ice:

2 – Earlier arctic data also show cooling, since 1956:

3 – Over the last 100 years, arctic temperatures reached their highest levels in the 1930s, not in Al Gore’s life time, notwithstanding powerful suggestions to the contrary:

Further reading:

IPCC scandal – Climategate:

Global cooling charts: