Monthly Archives: June 2019

Climate Change Science And Politics: It’s All About Creating Fear.

Merchants-of-fear-432-
TheNewAmerican.com
Written by James Murphy
Wednesday, 12 June 2019

With the climate hysteria movement, fear is everything. How much fear can they ignite in the population is the key to their future governmental plans. Unfortunately for them, people like freedom, and it turns out and they have to be petrified in order to give it up.

On Monday, radio’s Rush Limbaugh spoke about a good example from the not-too-distant past that shows the depths to which the climate alarmist community is willing to go to instill fear in the public about climate change.

On his show, Limbaugh said, “it illustrates just how wrong and fearmongering the entire climate change, global warming (now ‘extreme weather’) crowd is.”

Back in 2015, the good folks at the Media Research Center uncovered an excellent example of the type of sky-is-falling propaganda and deceit that the climate alarmist community is capable of. In 2008, ABC News presented a documentary style program called Earth 2100, a feature that made several predictions about a dystopian future, in which mankind fails to act on global warming in time to forestall climate disaster.

The full film wasn’t actually broadcast until 2009, which makes its failed prognostications of 2015 one year more ridiculous. But in June of 2008, ABC’s Good Morning America aired a trailer of the film and interviewed reporter Bob Woodruff about the upcoming film. Woodruff narrated the film, telling then-GMA anchor Chris Cuomo that it “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.”

The film follows a fictional character known as Lucy through her life. In the beginning of the film, Woodruff is careful to say that events shown in the story are not “a prediction about what will happen, but what might happen.”

Lucy’s 2015 was a pretty awful place, with a gallon of milk costing just under $13.00. Gasoline was over $9.00 per gallon with lines stretching for blocks to get it. In fact, gas stations were forced to close due to lack of product. Miami, where Lucy lives, is wilting under the worst heatwave in history and then, on cue Miami is hit by the largest hurricane in history.

Interspersed throughout the film are “climate experts” such as Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and CNN’s Van Jones giving their “expert” opinions on the climate crisis. Though, technically a work of fiction, the show is presented in a dishonest documentary style.

And, of course, America is the villain in all of it. Led by America, the world doesn’t act to cut greenhouse emissions. In fact, in one of the more ridiculous prophecies contained in the film, America acts to build dozens of new coal-fired energy plants.

Had the show been promoted as a comedy with a laugh track, it would have made more sense. As some sort of prophecy based on climate science, it failed miserably, at least for its 2015 prognostications.

In the actual 2015, you could buy a gallon of milk for about $3.40. Gas at the time was selling at an average of $2.75 per gallon — no supply shortages noted. Today, in 2019, the average national price for a gallon of gasoline is only $2.72.

And, of course, Miami and indeed all of Florida rode out what storms it did see, as the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico were in the middle of a 12-year-drought of serious hurricanes, which ended in 2017 when Hurricane Maria hit Texas.

Much like their failed climate models, the climate hysterics behind this show couldn’t get anything right. ABC’s Earth 2100 was nothing but fear-porn based on misunderstood science. Though it claimed not to make “predictions,” the scientists, politicians, and journalists involved with the show were clearly hinting that such things were going to happen.

Despite being continually wrong, the climate alarmist movement persists. Any extreme weather event is treated as “proof” that the climate is changing for the worse. And those claims are always anchored to calls for the governments of the world to “do something.” It must be terrible being a part of a movement which has to root for disaster and death to occur in order to make their point.

And even if any of this were true, the governments of the world would be the last entities we should trust to do anything about it. Especially any corrupt “global” government based out of the United Nations.

Climate hysterics like to claim that their assertions are all about “science.” But the ironic reality shows us that it’s true scientific inquiry that the movement fears. When President Trump, an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, suggested a special White House panel to study the issue and determine if climate change (so-called) is truly an existential threat, climate hysterics went predictably bananas. NASA climate scientist Katie Marvel said such a panel was “like assembling a panel of gravity skeptics who insist it’s safe to jump off tall buildings.”

Marvel’s reaction is not that of a true scientist but more like a religious fanatic whose beliefs are challenged. Real scientists welcome review of their work, especially skeptical review. If the science is truly “settled” and conclusive, why the fear of another climate panel?

Photo: Meindert van der Haven/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Communist Party USA Is 100 Years Old This Year.

02e285f9eb235db1b9d54bc053b4a8b1_M
Written by Steve Byas
Thursday, 23 May 2019
TheNewAmerican.com

It was in 1919 that a majority of the membership of the Socialist Party of the United States voted to join the Comintern, established by the Bolsheviks who had seized power in Russia in late 1917, as a way of promoting world revolution.

This year, 2019, marks 100 years of the Communist Party USA, founded as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Soviet Union, yet the importation of communist ideas to America precedes even the founding of the United States. The notion that communal, or communist, ownership of property was morally and practically superior to the private ownership of property actually goes back to the earliest days of American history. Both the colonists at Jamestown and the colonists at Plymouth attempted what can best be described as “small c” communism, leading to starvation.

Despite this example of the foolhardiness of such a plan, when the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth, they believed that they could make a communal system work. They couldn’t, of course, and Governor William Bradford explained what happened in his book, Of Plymouth Plantation: “This community … was found to breed such confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.… They deemed it a kind of slavery.”

One would think that such history would have been enough, yet throughout American history there have always been some with sympathy for such a system. For example, Horace Greeley was the publisher of the New York Tribune and a member of the Communist International. He even hired Karl Marx, the author of The Communist Manifesto, as a European correspondent. Another prominent American member of the Communist International was Senator Charles Sumner.

Many such examples could be offered, but it was not until the Bolsheviks staged a violent coup d’etat against the Russian government in 1917 that revolutionary communism had actually captured a country. They quickly formed the Third Communist International (the Comintern), and plotted world revolution. Hungary briefly went communist and Germany almost followed.

Cooking Up Communism in America

But no greater prize could be imagined in the Communist Conspiracy to establish their one-world government than to take over the United States, and this was the avowed goal in the establishment of the Communist Party USA in 1919.

This group was led by John Reed and Benjamin Gitlow, but they were denied admission into the Socialist convention. Reed had been in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, and was so thrilled with what had transpired that he wrote a book about it — Ten Days That Shook the World. (Not surprisingly, Hollywood eventually made a laudatory movie, Reds, based on Reed’s book). Reed, Gitlow, and others then met on August 31 and formed the Communist Labor Party of America (CLP).

Among those who helped swell the ranks of this new fledgling Communist Party were members of the communistic International Workers of the World (I.W.W.). I.W.W. members, sometimes known as “Wobblies,” had used sabotage and violence to protest during the First World War. The Soviet Union’s leaders quickly saw how important an American Communist Party would be to their ultimate goal of world revolution and world government, and dispatched C.A. Martens to give the American communists direction.

Before the new American Communist Party was allowed full membership in the Comintern, however, its officers were required to sign the “Twenty-one Conditions of Admission.” These 21 conditions of admission to the Comintern made it quite clear that the Communists in the Soviet Union would dictate what happened in America’s Communist Party. In 1953, the U.S. Subversive Activities Control Board concluded after several hearings and investigations, “We find upon the whole record that the evidence preponderantly establishes that [the leaders of the Communist Party USA] and its members consider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate to their loyalty and obligations to the Soviet Union.”

Among the 21 conditions were the following: “The Communist Party [of the USA] must carry on a clear-cut program of propaganda for the hindering of the transportation of munitions of war to the enemies of the Soviet Republic.” Another said, “All decisions of the Communist International … are binding upon all parties belonging to the Communist International,” while another stipulated that, “The duty of spreading Communist ideas includes the special obligation to carry on a vigorous and systematic propaganda in the Army. Where this agitation is forbidden by exceptional laws, it is to be carried on illegally.”

Labor unions were to be targeted for takeover: “Every party wishing to belong to the Communist International must systematically and persistently develop a Communist agitation within the trade-unions.” Similar agitation was to be employed in rural areas. “Iron discipline” was to be maintained, and “periodic cleanings” of membership rolls were necessary to get rid of dissenters. Finally, any member who rejected these conditions and the “theses of the Communist International, on principle, must be expelled from the party.”

From the very beginning, however, American communists had to contend with factionalism and differences in advancing their cause. A rival to the Communist Labor Party did not believe that the Labor Party was truly communistic, and the CLP responded in kind. The rival group called itself the Communist Party of America. It was led by Charles Ruthenberg (he died in 1927 and his ashes are buried in the Kremlin), and was launched on September 1, 1919.  Yet another splinter group in Michigan was the Proletarian Party.

Another problem was that a strong majority of the “American” communists were not native-born, with some even having difficulty speaking English. The Communist lamented in June of 1920, “The Communist Party, from the very beginning of its existence found its work hampered because it had in its ranks only a few men capable of expressing Communist principles in the English language.”

The Executive Committee of the Com-intern soon ordered the rival parties to consolidate “in the shortest possible time.” In case there was any misunderstanding, the directive was emphatic: “Unity is not only possible, but absolutely necessary. The Executive Committee categorically insists on its immediate realization.”

With a representative of the Comintern present, a “unity” convention was held in May 1920 at Bridgman, Michigan, which resulted in the formation of the United Communist Party of America. Still, some refused to go along with this “united” Communist Party, with some desirous of the right to leave the party, or differ with the Comintern on some issues.

It took another year of bickering, but finally, in May 1921, the United Communist Party and some splinter groups formed the Communist Party of America, at Woodstock, New York. They agreed to work together for violent revolution, as “armed insurrection” was the “only means of overthrowing the capitalist state.” They also reiterated their complete subservience to Moscow.

The party would have both a legal element, which would disseminate communist propaganda in the public arena and run candidates for office (the Workers Party), and an underground aspect to conduct illegal activities, such as operating a spy network for the Soviet Union. In this regard, many American communists — William Z. Foster, Earl Browder, Jay Lovestone, Benjamin Gitlow, and John Reed — made several trips to Moscow.

Foster remarked that a 1921 visit with  Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin “was one of the most inspiring moments” of his life.

Gitlow, who later left the Communist Party, wrote in his book The Whole of Their Lives about the very early days that he was inspired by what Lenin had accomplished in Russia and believed a successful revolution was imminent in the United States. “On September 2, 1919, the communist movement was officially launched. September 9 the Boston Police strike began. September 22, the nation-wide Steel strike led by William Z. Foster started. At the end of October, the soft-coal miners under the leadership of John L. Lewis staged a nation-wide coal strike stretching from the Appalachian coal range to the Pacific in defiance of a government order not to strike.”

Taylor Swift Just Another Anti-Christian, Anti-Family Mouth Piece For Communist Gay Pride Movement.

SwiftBigotry-1
Related Articles From CantonTruth.blogspot.com & Fourhorsemen66.com

Did you know that the ‘Gay-Pride’ Flag Actually Mocks God?

Ben Carson Explains How Gay Marriage Is A Communist Plot To Impose The ‘New World Order’.

 

Dear Taylor: Please stop being a hateful, intolerant, anti-Christian bigot.

By FireBreathingChristian

-April 10, 2019

What once was a crowd of God-hating nutjobs screeching incessantly about “keeping religion out of politics” has interestingly (but not surprisingly) metastasized into a raging mob that’s all too willing to use its religion as a political tool by which to bludgeon, shame, and crush all who dare dissent from their more-obviously-insane-by-the-minute agenda. (Remember: These people actually think that Bruce Jenner is a woman…and that to publicly oppose that flagrantly moronic position is an expression of “hate”.)

In recent weeks we’ve been treated to several examples of this newfound public/political religious zealotry on the Left, including Taylor Swift’s open promotion of hate, intolerance, and anti-Christian bigotry…all in the name of promoting peace, love, and tolerance, of course.

The Washington Post, property of Jeff Bezos (another prominent advocate of marriage/family-destroying “progress”), glowingly covered Swift’s religion-and-politics mingling attack on orthodox Christianity this way:

“Look what you made her do.

Taylor Swift, the pop megastar whose recent political awakening has been something to watch, donated $113,000 on Monday to an LGBTQ advocacy group in her adopted home state of Tennessee.

Swift informed the Tennessee Equality Project of her donation — the equivalent of one year’s operating budget for the organization — in a handwritten note addressed to its director, Chris Sanders.

“I’m writing to you to say that I’m so inspired by the work you do,” Swift wrote. The TEP and a group of Tennessee’s religious leaders are actively opposing bills moving through the state’s Republican-run legislature that specifically target LGBTQ individuals.

In her letter, Swift refers to the “Slate of Hate,” six bills that advocates say are discriminatory. The legislation covers topics such as adoption by LGBTQ parents, transgender students and workplace protections.

For years, Swift kept her politics close to the vest — or sparkly leotard in her case — and critics pounced. But in a piece published last month in Elle magazine, Swift wrote that she had wanted to educate herself before speaking up.”

To get a better sense of Taylor’s infusion of religion into her attack on orthodox Christianity, here’s her letter:

Taylor-Swift-Note-Of-Idiocy

It’s hard to overstate the amount of hate, intolerance, and bigotry flowing through both Swift’s letter/check combo and WaPo’s coverage of it.

For them, openly venting hatred against the most basic of orthodox Christian views on family, sexuality and marriage is…get this: an expression of love.

For them, openly trampling the religion of orthodox Christians is infinitely less significant than “hurting the feelings” of an LGBTQRSTD-type anywhere at any time.

For them, intolerance of orthodox Christianity is essential to…the pursuit of tolerance.

See how that works?

They get to be aggressively intolerant…in the name of opposing intolerance.

They get to use their religion to crush and silence ours…in the name of promoting tolerance.

Neat, huh?

Makes almost as much sense as claiming Bruce Jenner is a woman…

But wait, it gets better:

For them, anti-Christian bigotry is not only a viable option, but a necessity.

Orthodox Christianity and those unenlightened enough to cling to it must be shamed and politically oppressed at every turn.

That’s how “tolerance” works best in the depraved minds of Swift & Company.

Orthodox Christianity must be silenced.

It must be shut down.

That’s what happens when you let satanic worldviews out of the closet (see: Romans 1). Once out, they inevitably strive toward shaming, persecuting, and hating Christianity into silence. They inevitably strive to make evil into good and good into evil.

In this context, the bizarrely hypocritical and destructive actions of programmed slaves to the Progressive agenda like Taylor Swift should come as no surprise, but they should be pointed out for what they are at every opportunity.

Taylor Swift funds and encourages anti-Christian hate groups.

Taylor Swift is passionately intolerant of orthodox Christians.

Taylor Swift is openly hateful toward orthodox Christianity.

These are simple facts.

Taylor Swift is a hateful, intolerant, anti-Christian bigot.

We need not be angry or snarl when we share such truths. We should instead be as gracious and sober-minded as possible as we go about the important business of clearly, calmly, and publicly confronting the likes of Taylor Swift and her many advocates in dinosaur media with the fact that we see them for what they are.

An Inconvenient Glacier: Study Shows Greenland Glacier Growing.

a0045d920669274970fbc23c506d58e3_M

An Inconvenient Glacier: Study Shows Greenland Glacier Growing

Written by James Murphy

Thursday, 28 March 2019

Over the past two decades, the Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland had been melting at what climate alarmists might term an alarming rate. However, a new study published in Nature Geoscience has concluded that since 2016, the Jakobshavn Glacier is now growing again.

Using airborne altimetry and satellite imagery data, the study concludes that since 2016, the glacier has been advancing. The data used was from NASA’s Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission. The study was conducted by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with contributions from Remote Sensing Solutions in Barnstable, Massachusetts, and the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands.

The study traces the glacier’s growth spurt to a naturally occuring cycle of cooler water in the North Atlantic more than 600 miles south of the glacier. Researchers posit that the cold water was set in motion due to an effect known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which causes the Northern Atlantic to switch slowly between warm and cold every five to 20 years.

The water in Disko Bay, where the glacier meets the Atlantic, is now 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than it was just a few years ago, causing the Jakobshavn Glacier to grow. Water temperatures in the vicinity of the glacier are now colder than they’ve been since the mid-1980s.

And, boy, were the scientists surprised about it.

“At first, we didn’t believe it. We had pretty much assumed that Jakobshavn would just keep going on as it had over the last twenty years,” said Ala Khazendar, a research scientist at JPL and the lead author of the study.

Around 2012, Jakobshavn had been retreating at roughly 1.8 miles, and thinning at about 130 feet, annually. However, according to the study, it has been growing again at roughly those same rates since 2016.

As far as ice loss and its potential contribution to sea-level rise, the Jakobshavn glacier is one of the most important in the Northern Hemisphere.

“This was kind of a surprise. We kind of got used to a runaway system,” said ice and climate scientist Jason Box of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. “The good news is that it’s a reminder that it’s not necessarily going that fast. But it is going.”

Box was not a part of the study, but he called Jakobshavn “arguably the most important Greenland glacier because it discharges the most ice in the Northern Hemisphere. For all of Greenland, it is king.”

Another NASA scientist, who was not part of the project, lauded the OMG mission for its groundbreaking scientific potential. Tom Wagner, NASA Headquarters program scientist for the cryosphere, said, “The OMG mission deployed new technologies that allowed us to observe a natural experiment, much as we would do in a laboratory, where variations in ocean temperature were used to control the flow of a glacier. Their findings — especially about how quickly the ice responds — will be important to projecting sea level rise in both the near and distant future.”

But in 2019, where climate is concerned, there can never be good news. Any study must be spun to include impending disaster.

Scientists connected to the study were quick to point out that the glacier’s growth is only an “interruption” of the expected long-term glacial melt supposedly caused by anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.

“Jakobshavn is getting a temporary break from this climate pattern. But in the long run, the oceans are warming. And seeing the oceans have such a huge impact on the glaciers is bad news for Greenland’s ice sheet,” according to Josh Willis of JPL, the principal investigator of OMG.

In other words, the growing glacier is only evidence of a brief respite from the scourge of man-made global warming. Once the North Atlantic Oscillation changes back to warmer water, future glacial melts will be catastrophic.

“All this is an indicator of how sensitive glaciers are to ocean temperatures,” Khazendar explained, hinting that that’s not a good thing.

“In the long run, we’ll probably have to raise our predictions of sea level rise again,” said Willis.

Climate scientists cannot simply report on findings without linking them to future disaster. Any study, even one showing an obvious slowdown in global warming — a growing glacier — must be linked to catastrophic climate change. It’s another sure sign that the study of climatology is as much political as it is scientific.

Negative Impact Of USMCA On U.S. Cattle Industry Predicted.

download (14)

Negative Impact of USMCA on U.S. Cattle Industry Predicted.

Written by Steve Byas

Thursday, 28 March 2019

“The likely impact of the USMCA [United States, Mexico, and Canada Agreement, which the Trump Administration is pushing to replace NAFTA] on the U.S. cattle industry will be substantial, and will be substantially negative,” predicted Bill Bullard of the R-CALF USA.

R-CALF USA filed its final submission to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) this week, in an effort to ensure that the ITC’s report to President Trump and Congress will accurately describe the likely impacts of USMCA on the American cattle industry. The report of the ITC is required under a 2015 law, assessing the likely impact of the USMCA on the U.S. economy in general, and on specific sectors of the economy in particular.

While Trump campaigned vigorously against NAFTA during his successful 2016 presidential run, R-CALF contends that “the USMCA adopts the same provisions in the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) regarding cattle and beef trade.”

And those NAFTA provisions were “disastrous to independent cattle producers because they empowered multinational beef packers to indiscriminately displace domestic cattle and beef production with cheaper, undifferentiated imports of both cattle and beef,” R-CALF argued. “This has substantially weakened the U.S. live cattle supply chain and infrastructure, which has substantially reduced competition for the industry and is contributing to the hollowing out of America’s rural communities.”

Rather than just make general statements, R-CALF cited very specific ways that the NAFTA agreement has harmed the U.S. cattle industry, noting that these provisions are continued under the proposed USMCA. “Twenty percent of all U.S. beef cattle operations exited the industry from 1994 to 2012,” the group said, citing the latest available census data.

The U.S. beef cow herd has declined to the lowest level in seven decades, with nearly three million head less than in 1994. Forty-eight percent of U.S. beef packing plants have left the industry since 1995.

Before NAFTA, the share of U.S. cattle producers of every consumer beef dollar was 56 percent — by 2017 it had declined to just 45 percent.

In short, R-CALF lamented, “NAFTA has displaced domestic beef and cattle production.” USMCA promises a continuation of the same policies of NAFTA.

“In conclusion,” Bullard explained, “because NAFTA incorporates NAFTA’s fundamentally flawed provisions, it should be expected that the USMCA will now cause the elimination of the critical mass of competitive marketing channels and industry infrastructure needed to sustain an independent family farm and ranch system of cattle production in the United States. Thus, the new USMCA will accelerate the destruction of the U.S. cattle industry as we know it today.” (Emphasis added.)

The only years that cow/calf returns per bred cow exceeded the NAFTA period’s $37 average [it was $50 during the seven years prior to NAFTA] was during the time that the U.S. banned Canadian cattle imports, in 2004-2005, and after the 2009 implementation of the country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law. Unfortunately, under pressure from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the U.S. Congress meekly repealed COOL in December 2015 for beef and pork products.

With this repeal of COOL, consumers can no longer know from what country their beef or their pork is coming. One of the requirements for “pure competition” is that a consumer be reasonably well-informed about the product for sale. Considering that the average American, given a choice, would be more likely to buy beef from western Oklahoma than western Canada, it is clear that the repeal of COOL for beef and pork is detrimental to the American beef and pork producers.

Bullard, when asked about COOL by The New American, explained that the argument made by those who lobbied for Congress to terminate COOL for beef and pork is that beef from foreign countries “meets the same health and safety standards” as U.S. beef. But, Bullard said, “This notion that beef is beef is false.”

Bullard offered as an example of why it is false. He said that U.S. cattle producers are required to obtain veterinarian certification before administering antibiotics, but this does not apply to any other nation. He said this is not the only difference, but rather that there are a “host of differences” between the requirements placed on American beef producers and their foreign competitors.

Finally, if the United States is going to remain a sovereign nation, Congress should make appropriate regulations on interstate commerce and foreign imports, not the WTO, and not agreements such as NAFTA, USMCA, and the like. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations,” and no provision is made in the Constitution for Congress to delegate that power to the executive branch, or to any foreign body, such as the UN, the WTO, or USMCA.

Hopefully, Congress will reassert itself and kill USMCA — the latest assault upon our national sovereignty. In other words, Put America First.

Earth Day Exposed As Hippie Envirohoax. Convicted Murderer, Leftist Ira Einhorn Co-Founded Earth Day.

download (2)

c2371f6e801e9727dda4e2c370b65208_M

Forget Earth Day; Remember Murderer Einhorn, Its Co-founder, and the Bogus Claims of His Movement.

Thenewamerican.com

Written by R. Cort Kirkwood

April 22, 2019

It’s Earth Day again, so for the 49th time, mankind must suffer through another harangue about impending doom. But the one thing you won’t hear anywhere in that harangue is the bloody history of Earth Day’s illustrious co-founder, Ira Einhorn.

An inconvenient truth about him, as The Daily Caller quipped in borrowing Al Gore’s movie title, is this: He murdered his girlfriend in September 1977, composted her in a closet, fled to Europe, and hid for nearly two decades until the long arm of the law caught him.

Leftist Nutter Becomes Killer

Einhorn, who dubbed himself Unicorn, was “a tie-dye-wearing ecological guru and Philadelphia’s head hippie,” as NBC described the murderer in 2011.

The hirsute “charismatic spokesman” for the radical Left, however, “had a secret dark side,” which girlfriend Holly Maddux didn’t find out about until it was too late.

When Maddux broke up with Einhorn and split for New York, he told her to fetch her belongings from his apartment or he’d toss them in the street. “And so on Sept. 9, 1977, Maddux went back to the apartment that she and Einhorn had shared in Philadelphia to collect her things, and was never seen again,” NBC reported. “When Philadelphia police questioned Einhorn about her mysterious disappearance several weeks later, he claimed that she had gone out to the neighborhood co-op to buy some tofu and sprouts and never returned.”

The Unicorn lied.

Cops went back to his apartment 18 months later, NBC reported, after a neighbor “complained that a reddish-brown, foul-smelling liquid was leaking from the ceiling directly below Einhorn’s bedroom closet. Inside the closet, police found Maddux’s beaten and partially mummified body stuffed into a trunk that had also been packed with Styrofoam, air fresheners and newspapers.”

Cops arrested Einhorn, but he posted bail and fled the country in 1981. His attorney was future Senator Arlen Specter, who “assembled a group of his client’s supporters to serve as character witnesses, which helped Einhorn get released on bail,” OZY reported.

Lawmen nailed him in 1997, and while waging a four-year battle against extradition, the Associated Press reported, “Einhorn thumbed his nose at American authorities by appearing on television shows to discuss his plight and sipping wine while posing naked for photographers in his garden.”

Extradicted in 2001, Einhorn actually claimed the CIA murdered Maddux and framed Einhorn, NBC reported, because he was the real-life version of the man who knew too much. Einhorn expected jurors to believe the CIA whacked Maddux because Einhorn might spill the beans about the agency’s research into the paranormal.

Einhorn, who viewed himself as a “planetary enzyme,” and “catalyst for change,” told jurors about his “Virgo Moon,” AP reported.

The judge called him “an intellectual dilettante who preyed on the uninitiated, uninformed, unsuspecting and inexperienced.”

In 2002, a judge sentenced Einhorn to life in prison.

Envirohoax

The judge was on to something, and not just about Einhorn. The movement he helped found also preys upon the “uninitiated, uninformed, unsuspecting and inexperienced.” One might also say the credulous.

The American Enterprise Institute, using a no-longer-available article from Reason magazine, compiled a list of the myriad failed, but widely accepted, outlandish claims in 1970 from the movement’s leaders and its scientists, who retailed them as what they call “settled science,” or as Gore might say, “inconvenient truth:”

• The New York Times, after Earth Day 1: “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

• Population control fanatic Paul Erlich: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

• Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes: “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

• Life magazine: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…. By 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”

• Ecologist Kenneth Watt: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Watch: Baby Monitor Films Ghost Lurking Near Child’s Crib?

download (1)

CoastToCoastAm.com

By Tim Binnall

A frightened family in Michigan is looking for a new home after their baby monitor filmed a ghostly figure lurking near their daughter’s crib. The strangeness reportedly began when Heather Brough woke the child up from a nap and noticed three purple scratches on her face. The marks were odd enough that the concerned mom decided to check her baby monitor to see if it may have recorded the moment that the youngster was injured.

To her profound horror, Brough was stunned to see that the camera filmed an eerie-looking figure swiftly walking across her daughter’s room. It would seem that the anomaly was not a physical intruder, however, as it appears to dissipate after a few steps, suggesting that it was some kind of apparition. According to Brough, the proverbial ghost sighting is not the first case of paranormal activity in the home, as the family has allegedly heard inexplicable sounds and a disembodied voice.

While they were able to tolerate the weirdness at first, they now fear that the spirit in their home is showing a more malevolent side. To that end, Brough believes that the scratches on her daughter’s face were caused by the entity since they did not match up with the child’s own hand. The incident has proven to be so unsettling to the family that they now plan to move out of the home as soon as they can rather than tempt fate and see what the ghostly presence may do next. What’s your take on the spooky video? Let us know at the Coast to Coast AM Facebook page.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »