The Establishment Will Never Get It

Posted on April 7, 2016 by Robert Ringer Comments (55)

Font:

Today, I caught the end of Rush talking about an unnamed establishment big-money guy who is demanding that global warming be part of the Republican platform. Isn’t it amazing? Manmade global warming DOES NOT EXIST – and, contrary to what the radical left and establishment Republicans say, there is zero proof to the contrary — yet Republicans are afraid to refuse to go along with the scam.

In fact, after decades of failures, the corrupt establishment ignoramuses still insist that Republicans must go along with everything the radical left touts for fear they will lose the next election. Wake up, cowardly fools! The reason you lose elections is BECAUSE you pledge to support almost every left-wing cause.

These establishment guys will never learn, if for no other reason than they and their donors are keyed in to the profits by going along with the Dirty Dems’ agenda.

Calling all Republican supporters: Give it up … stop wasting your time and energy … stop allowing yourself to be stressed. The only answer is a third party. How about “Tea Party.” Now that has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

Robert Ringer

+Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

55 responses to “The Establishment Will Never Get It”

  1. Sheila says:

    I don't believe it! A REAL column that is short and sweet, point well taken and makes sense? An article that calls out Global Warming as fake? And does not attack Senator Cruz? And does not resort to name calling? And no mention of the Dumpster? It's not possible. My eyes deceive me. It is late. I must go to bed.

  2. Reality Seeker says:

    Speaking of "big money", it's all about the carbon taxes.

    Anthropogenic climate change is a more than a hoax. It's a fraud.

    • JohhnyTwoSheds says:

      I agree…the only anthropogenic ANYTHING being emitted is the hot air and BS continuously spewed forth by RINOs and the loony left – its like a Mount Vesuvius of pure bull hockey destroying Pompeii all over again!

    • Jim Hallett says:

      You hit the nail on the head, RS, as grants to public universities and carbon taxes to certain selected companies (Algore, the king of FRAUD was going to profit $$Billions with his company despite the fact his OWN carbon footprint is 100x that of any ordinary citizen!!) are the scam being promoted by "progressive" Dumbocrats and their media shills. The sun alone accounts for many times more of an effect on climate than anything that all 7 billion+ could do even if they were polluting to the fullest!

  3. Egadd! says:

    I forgot just who it was but someone that is big in the "man made global warming" crowd has admitted that the REAL PURPOSE of the movement was not to "repair" the planet but redistribute the wealth that the rich nations have to the poorer nations. There were studies done in Russia recently that when scientists looked at just the sun's output with a kind of device that can tell the temperature of the sun's surface and the temperature several hundred miles BENEATH that, the historic matchup of the temperature on the sun and earth matched with a 97% accuracy. That's good enough for me. As far as I'm concerned the question of "man made global warming" is SETTLED BEYOND DOUBT, just not the way that Al Gore wanted it to be.

    • Scott theczech says:

      By the way, it only takes one moderate (not even huge) volcanic eruption to skew the numbers making it almost impossible to assess blame for climate change. There are so many variables in the hypotheses regarding climate change, no scientist in their right mind would sign on to a theory, much less an axiom!

      • Andre Pilon says:

        You tell your garbage to NOAA, NASA, NSA and a few hundreds Nat'l Science Org. worldwide. IF you don't believe it, travel outside your State to verify. Bye, Mr Clown.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      One of the best common sense refutations of the AGW hypothesis I ever encountered, was right here on RR's site almost a year ago, in a comment to one of his masterpieces entitled, "The Joy of Lying." Responding to commenter Elizabeth's outrage at RR calling AGW a lie, Clarke Echols said:

      "Elizabeth wants to hear from a "real scientist". Well, I'm a real scientist. A degree in physics (extended major), graduate studies in engineering, thermodynamics, the whole kit & caboodle, plus I've been a licensed, registered, professional engineer and nearly a half-century of professional work in the sciences.

      Anybody with a lick of brains can pick up a reference book, such as a decent encyclopedia, or go online and search for atmospheric composition and find out the following: Water vapor varies from zero to about 4% of the atmosphere at any given location on earth at a given time. To keep it simple, let's assume dry air (no water vapor).

      On that basis, the air you breathe is a hair under 78% nitrogen. A hair above 21% oxygen. That's 99%. Of the remaining 1%, 7/8 of that is argon. That means 1/8 of 1/100th of the air you breathe is everything else (including methane), and only a fourth of that 1/8 of 1/100th is carbon dioxide. But 97% of the carbon dioxide is generated geologically by the earth itself and has nothing to do with man. So man-made carbon dioxide is responsible for 1/30th of 1/4th of 1/8th of 1/100th of the earth's atmosphere.

      If you stand in your living room and look at the distance from floor to ceiling, in most Amercan homes that distance is about 8 feet. If that 8 feet represents the entire earth's atmosphere, the distance that would represent man-made CO2 would be less than half the diameter of one hair on your head. Roughly 5/8 of one inch in an entire mile — all 5,280 FEET!

      The "data" used by climate "scientists" doesn't even pass the smell test for meeting decent standards of accuracy in measurement. There are no allowances for volcanic activity in their so-called computer models. (I've been involved in software development for over 40 years.) A significant volcanic eruption can cause a world-wide ice age (Mount Krakatoa in 435 AD) and world-wide freezing temperatures (1816, the "year of no summer" produced 18 inches of snow in Massachussets a week before the 4th of JULY!, caused by the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia on April 10, 1815). Look it up yourself.

      It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for carbon dioxide to have ANY influence on climate. This as already been proven in studies by US Government research labs that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. CO2 does not cause climate change. It changes in response to climate variations. Climate change is cause by the SUN. Perhaps you've heard of it. That bright thing overhead at noon-time on a clear day.

      The sun has its own climate. Man has no influence on that, nor will ever have. – Clarke Echols "

      QED! As usual hereabouts, there are many other cogent comments up-thread from that, and of course the article itself is must reading. :) ◄Dave►

      • Excellent information! Thank you.

      • Diane Young says:

        Thank you for this brilliantly succinct and easy-to-understand explanation in lieu of all the guessed-at and made-up crap about global warming.

      • Mike Broderick says:

        So what gave rise to the climate change theory? I have and still do accept what 99% of the climatologists tell me because they know more than me. I never cared what politicians weighed in on the subject because they also are not scientists. So what you are saying is the scientific community is lying to us? I'm willing to accept that there is a logical answer as I read your breakdown of the gases and clearly you are more knowledgeable than me but I am having a hard time accepting the scientific community seems to stand by this. I am a die hard libertarian and am willing to hear all plausible arguments, I agree 99% of the time with RR, but I am conflicted on this one issue. Please clarify if possible

        • Major Mike says:

          The claim was 97% of scientists, not 99%.
          <Quote:>
          The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it.</Unquote>

          See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-article

        • Jurgy says:

          Me too … I don't know what to think … I keep wondering who is better at marketing "climate change" … but when they changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change" I got a clue that what they are telling us is not the whole truth …

        • ◄Dave► says:

          The breakdown was not mine, Mike. As stated, I was quoting Clarke Echols. As for what gave rise to the theory, the environmental movement itself was started by Marxists, as an attack on Capitalism back in the '60s. It has spawned one man-made apocalyptic crisis after another. Silent Spring… Acid Rain… Species Extinctions… Rain Forests… Water Pollution… etc. Air Pollution, from burning carbon based fuels, has always been one of the favorites.

          Originally, it was the nitrogen oxides in automotive exhausts that was the bugaboo causing smog. When this was effectively cleaned up by catalytic converters, somebody decided that CO2 itself needed to be considered a pollutant, and its production curtailed. From that point forward, science has tried to justify that political decision, because government grant money went to those who furthered the hoax; not to those who tended to refute it. As always, follow the money…

          You might profit from reading: http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-th
          …or perusing the always interesting wattsupwiththat blog. Good luck. ◄Dave►

      • Jim Hallett says:

        Great info, Dave, as I should have read your reply before responding above, as I have always countered the fraudsters in the climate change/global warming scam with the fact the SUN is in charge, and NOT man!

    • Bill Amadeo says:

      Climate change has always existed and always will and has no relationship to what man does or doesn't do. Its cyclical stupid. Remember the Dinosaurs.

  4. Scott theczech says:

    I'm am so weary of the "big shakedown." Republicans have no shame! The establishment continues to view us producers as just that…producers as a dairy farmer views his cows.

  5. Paul Anthony says:

    Climate change is predicted by computer models. Our society puts a lot of faith in computers, perhaps because our public schools have succeeded in making most of us dumber than our smart phones..

    Last night on the 10 o'clock news the meteorologists consulted their computer models and told us it would rain all day today. It rained last night, but this morning the sun came out as usual and there hasn't been a drop of rain all day. MY aunt's arthritic knee has a better track record than the meteorologist's computer models.

    • Jurgy says:

      I've worked in the computer industry since there was a computer industry … and the old axiom "garbage in, garbage out" … is still true …

      • ◄Dave► says:

        Agreed! I first learned that chestnut working for Univac back in the '60s, when IBM was still just an office machine company. 😉 ◄Dave►

    • Jim Hallett says:

      Paul, you must listen to the same ill-informed Dope-ler group I hear spouting weather MIS-information all the time. I refer to them as El Dodo Stupido, since they are constantly using El Nino to explain all their theories, which have been wrong. This April is worse than any January weather, despite the fact that EDS said it would be WAY above normal in temps this Spring! They must be doing the "science" work on climate change, too!

  6. Smucko says:

    Well, at least the true Establishment Guys have an excuse — they are in power and getting rich. The ones that scare me because THEY will never get it are the other 90% of Republican voters who smugly look down on, or feel sorry for, citizens who live in totalitarian regimes worldwide, never realizing that we are heading down the same path. I mean, how do they simultaneously take great pride in American Exceptionalism while witnessing it get dismantled every day, give Congress a dismal approval rating but continue to re-elect the same people like John Boehner, who assured Obama in 2014 that the Republicans would not impeach him, continue to vote for the lesser of two evils every election while telegraphing to both parties that the voters are not interested in forming a third party. The Establishment know that we have trapped ourselves in their Party Room simply because we are too stupid to find the door out of it.
    I had hoped that Ron Paul in 2012 and Ted Cruz in 2016 would lead us out of the Party Room by galvanizing us into dumping our respective corrupt guy in Congress, but Ron was too timid and Ted has fallen into the gutter.
    The only question left is whether Obama can finish us off, or just galvanize us to take to the streets like the Tea Party has done before. Stay tuned.

    • Emily says:

      What gutter are you referring to? Cruz will be our next president.

      • Duane says:

        It will probably be hilary because if cruz gets the nomination Working Class Whites won't bother voting…..
        Hilary may crash their sinking hollow looted rotting ship even faster which may be good…

  7. MHG says:

    Um, 97% of scientists endorse climate change. If there is only a 5% chance that they are right, can we afford not to take action? History is littered with civilizations that died because they overpopulated and ruined the environments that supported them. We are not immune. At least boost support for Planned Parenthood to help stem the world's ever increasing birth rate.

    • SteveR says:

      Really? 97% of scientists? Can you provide documentation of that?

      • Robert Ringer RJR says:

        Yes, please document that statement. There are thousands of respected scientists that say manmade climate chnage is complete bunk.

        • Jurgy says:

          Can you document that? … I'm not doubting you, I just have never been able to decipher who is telling the biggest lies …

    • Emily says:

      Have you never realized how often the advice of so called scientific experts is proven wrong? With time, most of their findings are wrong. Scientific theory is used as fact when it is no more provable or repeatable than religion. These people want to control the world with their theories! Like lemmings we would surely go over the cliff to extinction.

    • MJM says:

      Couple of more things that need documentation:
      1) "History is littered with civilizations that died because they overpopulated and ruined the environments that supported them."
      2) "…the world's ever increasing birth rate"

    • Major Mike says:

      Unfortunately, @MHG you're demonstrating the religious fervour in which warmists regurgitate dubious "facts." If you'd like the REAL facts, from REAL scientists, see wattsupwiththat.com

    • patg2 says:

      Humans SOLVE problems. Your message is anti-human, and as they say, complete bunk. Planned Parenthood hates people. They're despicable, and should be tried for crimes against humanity.

    • Jean says:

      I believe Major Mike's response answers your assumptions quite nicely:
      The claim was 97% of scientists, not 99%.
      <Quote:>
      The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it.</Unquote>

      See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-article….
      Report
      I could ask 100 "scientists" whose livelihoods depended solely on capturing grant money from government agencies with solidly established leftist agendas too – and get the same results. Or I could ask legitimate scientists who follow the facts and data regardless of where they lead. The reality is, it's utter egotism on the part of the left to believe that man has ANY control over anything in nature. If you look at history, you realize that nature ALWAYS wins the day.

  8. JVE says:

    Well of course global warming is real. What do you think happens after an ice age?

    Then there is the shifting of the planet on its' axis, past the the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn – which was reading about in high school back in the seventies.

    Add in El Nino (particularly strong this year) and you get – voila! – climate change! Surprise, surprise.

    Is man-made global warming an actual phenomenon? Pretty likely, considering the Earth's population has increased just a bit since medieval times. More people breathing; more cows farting – of, like that's completely unexpected…

    I've lived in Phoenix, AZ, for over thirty years – and we've yet to break the 122-degree record here (right around the time Al Gore invented the Internet, as my old brain recollects).

    It's the nature of the universe – we heat up; we cool down.

    'Course, they no longer teach that stuff in high school; even college. Remember when eggs were bad for your health, real sugar was ruled 'unhealthy', and animal flesh was an 'artery-clogging' killer?

    Sheesh…
    JVE

  9. patg2 says:

    Tell you what. The Republican Party doesn't belong to the Establishment. It belongs to us, and we must take it back. They can't have it. They aren't entitled to it. Running away and letting them have it is not an option.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Why ever would you want it? Do you desire to elect kindly shepherds to control how you live your life, or are you more interested in electing simpatico shepherds, to force others to live their lives by your standards? Perhaps as a sovereign individualist, I am just a lone wolf; but I have no desire to be part of a flock or a shepherd. All I ask of the collective is to leave me be. ◄Dave►

      • patg2 says:

        Unfortunately in our system, only large numbers of people can accomplish anything. Lone wolves simply get killed by government agents. People are proposing a new party to displace the Republican Party. Wrong approach. Take the party back. If it is faithful to our values, it won't be a problem.

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Again, what is it that you are trying to accomplish, for which you need a political party? Government agents have neither the time, resources, or need to track down and kill every lone wolf that is not attacking or even bothering them. It is only when contumacious citizens join together in groups to publicly challenge their authority, that governments must deploy their coercive agents to quell dissent. I can attest that one can lead a fairly free life in this decidedly un-free country, by simply bobbing, weaving, and generally ignoring the government. ◄Dave►

          • patg2 says:

            Government agents take the resources they need from the people. They catch the lone wolves eventually. I've seen it repeatedly with people I know. You can't win elections without a large number of people, and ultimately, you have to replace the bad guys to bring lasting change.

            If I recall correctly, Ruby Ridge was about a single family, not teamed up with anyone else to my knowledge. That's just one example.

          • ◄Dave► says:

            Ruby Ridge was an atrocity that still pisses me off every time I think about it; but Randy Weaver was hardly bobbing, weaving, and peacefully ignoring the government. He ran for County Sheriff, was actively attending Aryan Nation meetings, and sold firearms to an undercover agent posing as a biker. Right or wrong, his refusal to surrender to the arrest warrant, and vow to fight instead, caused the standoff, which ultimately led to the tragedy. Such behavior is not what I meant by a lone wolf avoiding the collective of sheeple and their political shepherds. ◄Dave►

          • patg2 says:

            No serious quarrel with most of what you wrote. Obviously going to Aryan Nation meetings, even though he had the right to do so, was waving a red flag. I'm not sure that it was wrong of him to refuse to surrender. They could have taken him without the bloodshed, and should have done so.

  10. 124andmore says:

    I suspect that Speaker Paul Ryan (CR56%) would support the global warming agenda and most other leftist agendas. We conservatives have to start spending our money to support conservative candidates. It's not enough to just shoot our mouths. People like Ryan, McConnell, and others with a low CR rating can be defeated, but it can't be done without spending money. The money should be sent directly to the candidate through his or her website, and should not be sent to the Republican Party or a superpac.

  11. Alriver says:

    Yes, Mother Earth is warming; it has been warm then cold, and then warm again. Let’s take just the last 100 thousands years, which is nothing on the geological clock of the Earth, and we find at least 10 periods of glaciations with warming periods in between.

    We (humans) are of course part of mother Earth, and we are a minor part of it. So it is preposterous to think, to believe that WE (humans) are causing the current warming of the Earth, that somehow we are “destroying” mother Earth!

    Our planet Earth will not be destroyed. Earth will not « die ». Earth has been alive for over 4.5 milliard years and WE (humans) have been around for only an extremely small fraction of that period of time; what is 1.5 million against 4.5 milliards (0.0003%)?! Earth has gone through many, many, many other “catastrophes” since it exists: prolonged cold and hot periods, dinosaur’s extinction, nuclear blasts, extreme, really extreme weather events, catastrophic volcanisms, all type of disastrous hurricanes, typhoons and global tsunamis, etc., etc., etc. Yet Earth has survived all those. By the time WE (humans) will be long gone, Earth will still be here, at least other 4.5 milliard years.

    Just think about this: We are NOTHING compared to the natural forces of the Earth and the Universe where the Earth orbits.

    Do not believe everything you see, read, hear, simply because most say it; rather, read, study and increase your knowledge, you will feel better when you understand by yourself, not by the alarmist media posts, however “convincing” they appear to be.

    Unfortunately it has come down to “believing.” But this is not a matter of belief (I’m neither a “denier” nor a believer), this is not religion; this is scientific, deterministically-based knowledge. It has happened before. It took centuries for humans to understand; remember in the sixteenth century (early 1500s) when the church said, and people believed, that the Earth was the center of the Universe? Or when humans thought that the Earth was flat in the 6th century, in the Middle Ages?

    Let’s not go back there please.

    We can discuss the other issues (CO2 emissions, eating meat or not, etc.) when and if we use the right words, the right context, without drama, without media, just the known facts.

    • patg2 says:

      You got a lot of things right. Now check out the MYTH of a very old earth. Can't happen. Not with the evidence available. Just one case in point: the moon is receding from earth at the rate of 1/4" a year. Extrapolate back. It can't have been orbiting the earth for more than a tiny fraction of 4.5 milliards. And it is necessary for life: it controls the tides. Too close, and the tides would be too violent. The earth is young. The idea of a very old earth is another of those lies that some scientists tell for their own purposes.

      • Alriver says:

        I don’t know what you mean by “young”; could you provide a number based on science?
        I’m sorry to disappoint you but the Earth is at least 4 milliards years old. This is a scientifically- based fact, and of course as everything in science, it has an associated uncertainty bar but not larger than ca 5%. However Earth is no younger than 4 milliard years. The field of study is called geochronology, which uses natural radioactive decay to determine accurate ages over the entire span of Earth’s history.
        Old rocks are analyzed using “The Sensitive High Resolution Ion Microprobe” (SHRIMP), a high-precision instrument that helps geologists unravel the story of the past.
        For example, one of the well-known oldest rocks on Earth, the Acasta Gneiss from the Northwest Territories (Canada) was dated to 4.03 billion years old — almost as old as Earth itself. The SHRIMP takes measurements of the ratio of uranium to lead within tiny mineral grains of zircon separated from a rock sample. Since uranium decays to lead at a known rate, this ratio tells scientists how much time has elapsed since the crystal formed, helping to determine when the rock was formed.
        I can more or less understand your confusion. Just think that at the time Earth was formed, there was no life on Earth there was not even water. Water appeared much later. So the effects of the Moon, which by the way is much younger than Earth, had no impact on Earth and/or life at that time

        • patg2 says:

          No, the earth is not very old. The upper limit is about 10,000 years, based on the decay of earth's magnetic field. If you follow the curve back in time, the magnetic field is so strong at around 10,000 that the earth would be molten.

          Radiometric dating has been shown to be invalid. You have to ASSUME the ratio of parent and daughter elements to begin with, you have to ASSUME no daughter or parent elements migrated into or out of the sample, you have to ASSUME that the rate of decay is a constant (it's not; we already KNOW how to change that; it's called atom bombs and nuclear power plants). All of these assumptions make it impossible to use this method for anything. My husband worked in the geochronology lab at the University for awhile, and saw that the methods chosen were based on politics, not science. There are many methods that demonstrate very different ages for the earth, such as the rate of deposit of sediments from rivers onto the ocean floor, to name another. His experience caused him to start to question, and he no longer accepts evolution at all. By the way, he has a PhD in engineering.

  12. Neal says:

    I am surprised that no talk of climate change that I've seen has referenced the British documentary that looks over an 8-thousand year period of evidence from ice samples in the Antarctic only to show that warming and cooling of the earth has been almost predictably cyclical for the last 8-thousand years.
    Two elements are worth noting: 1. In the 8-thousand years of ice samples, the total change in climate temperatures was less than .98 degree centigrade, and 2. the cycles were roughly 500-years in which there was slight warming followed by slight cooling. An addendum to that was that warming PRECEDED a rise in carbon dioxide, not CAUSED it. (Just the opposite of Gore's position). In other words, increase in the gas always TRAILED the temperature increases.
    Add to that, several scientists in Australia, parts of Europe and Russia were even predicting that we might be headed for another ice age, rather than warming. (Remember the first Earth Day in the 70's? They were predicting that then). Definitely something most climate enthusiasts don't want to hear.

  13. Duane says:

    The "unnamed establishment big-money guy" seems to be zio gambling billionaire Sheldon Adelson who owns every repuplicrat candidate besides Trump….
    The "Tea Party" was hijacked very quickly by izrahell over 5 years ago….Remember pig sara palin sowing up at the major hijacked "tea party" events wearing her izrahell flag pin? (a great "amerikan")…..

  14. BobE says:

    When you say you "caught the end of Rush" it's obvious which end you caught.

  15. Guest says:

    It would be better for every "establishment big-money guy" to demand that cops be prosecuted under RICO statutes for aiding and abetting "Progressives" and other socialistic criminals. Of course, the socialists, too, need to be prosecuted—or beat down in their offices, in their class rooms, at their rallies, and in their homes.

    P.S. "Tea Party" is lazy-minded and crude. It would also expose the membership to a flurry of abuse such as "Tea Bag Party". And what reasonable person would want to be exposed as a member of a TB Party? Now, it so happens that I have a FAR better idea for a name of a new party, and if you have some imagination, you may figure out that name by looking at the (ahem) constellation of stars above the eagle on the Great Seal.

  16. Nasdaq7 says:

    There's massive manipulation of Twitter, millions upon millions of messages by thousands of fake pro-Trump Twitter accounts.

  17. Scott theczech says:

    It must be all the hot air erupting from Washington DC that is causing global warming.

  18. larajf says:

    Well said. We're pissed off and mad about it. I think there's way more of "us" then "them" and hopefully our voices will be heard.

Leave a Reply