As for Newt, a picture says a thousand words. This one speaks volumes.

While at the Cannes Film Festival promoting the documentary The Big Fix, Peter Fonda shared some of his thoughts on President Barack Obama:

“I sent an email to President Obama saying, ‘You are a f—— traitor,’ using those words… ‘You’re a traitor, you allowed foreign boots on our soil telling our military – in this case the coastguard – what they can and could not do, and telling us, the citizens of the United States, what we could or could not do’.”

Those are pretty strong words. What I find funny is the lack of outrage from the left. Why is it that the left will criticize a Tea Party member, sometimes calling them racists, for supporting limited government, but not a fellow left-winger who calls the President a traitor in a profanity-laced tirade?

This is some of the most obvious hypocrisy I’ve seen, and it raises some questions. First, is Barack Obama losing the the far left? It looks that way. Second, is it safe to criticize the President without being called a racist? Just wondering.

Barack Obama

Democrats are criticizing Barack Obama for cutting money for heating assistance in half. In the President’s defense, is this money really necessary? After all, according to them, global warming is gradually raising the temperature of the Earth. If this trend continues, as many liberals say it will, we would hardly need to have the same level of heating assistance.

Of course, many liberals would rightly point out that we have faced one of the coldest winters in recent history. I wouldn’t disagree with this point, but it is going to warm up a lot, isn’t it?

Barack Obama has been getting a lot of criticism for his calm demeanor since the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Even some supporters wish he would get fired up. I don’t know about you, but his statement about kicking ass seems a bit forced, and quite frankly, laughable. For his sake, someone in his inner circle needs to tell him to drop the forced routine. This is government, not the WWE.

“Many of the people appointed in the Bush administration are still burrowed in the agencies that are supposed to oversee the [oil] industry,” Pelosi said when asked if Democrats could have prevented or mitigated the crisis by keeping a closer watch on the industry.

Added the Speaker, “the cozy relationships between the Bush administration’s agency leadership and the industry is clear…I’ve heard no complaints from my members about the way the president has handled it,” Pelosi stated.

So, to summarize, even though Democrats have controlled Congress for nearly four years, Barack Obama has been President for 18 months, and many (or most) of George Bush’s appointees are long gone, he still shares responsibility for what is happening in the Gulf. I have a feeling that a housekeeper in the White House could drop a plate, and somehow, whey would find a way to blame George W. Bush.

There are already complaints about the new regulation relating to the increased cost of new automobiles and the reluctance to do anything to improve global warming, since many find the science inconclusive. As for the cost, it could be substantial. New car prices may rise up to $1,000. That’s certainly nothing to sneeze at, but this extra cost will certainly pay for itself in reduced fuel costs. Besides, once the car companies begin making more fuel efficient cars on a large scale, the economies of scale will likely kick in and bring this upfront increase down.

As for those who oppose the more stringent standards based on their skepticism of global warming, I offer this advice: Put that aside for a moment. Whatever you think about global warming, there is no doubt that our nation faces a major problem: Our reliance on foreign oil. I really don’t like that we get so much of our oil from the Middle East and other hostile countries. One of America’s chief goals should be to become energy independent. The Obama administration recently stated that more drilling will be allowed off the U.S. coast. The increase isn’t as expansive as I’d like, but it’s a step in the right direction to increase our domestic supply. By also increasing our fuel efficiency standards, we will be decreasing our domestic demand. If domestic supply continues to rise while domestic demand continues to drop, then we will be heading in the right direction.

Of course, you might still disagree with me. If you do, then feel free to continue opposing these new standards while driving inefficient vehicles. I’m sure the terrorists who live in Middle Eastern countries who benefit from your decision will thank you.

According to the article, any store which sells food must impose the tax. That means that supermarkets, convenience stores, drug stores, bakeries, and larger retailers will also be charging for bags, since they sell food. Sure, you can buy reusable bags to avoid the 5 cent tax, but are you going to bring the bags into nearly every store you visit?

D.C. officials say the money will be used to clean up the Anacostia river, which according to them, has been ravaged by the scourge of plastic bags. They are framing this law as a way to clean up the environment, but it actually looks like nothing more than another scheme to separate citizens from their money. If you think I’m wrong, then consider that the tax also applies to paper bags, which are biodegradable. Besides this, many stores already run a bag exchange where shoppers can return their bags to be recycled.

There is a good chance that your city or state is facing financial problems and will be looking for a new source of revenue, since many public officials don’t like to cut spending. What better way to raise money than to slip in a very small, but ultimately substantial tax that is camouflaged as an environmental bill? Get used to it, because it’s coming to a town near you.

We could say that there is a ghost lurking. To paraphrase Karl Marx there is a ghost running through the streets of Copenhagen. And I think that ghost is silent, somewhere in this room, amongst us. Coming through the corridors and underneath. And that ghost is a terrible ghost and nobody wants to name him or her. It’s capitalism. Capitalism is that ghost. Nobody I don’t think wants to name it. Capitalism. I’ve also been struck by some of the signs outside this conference. One sign in particular that reads, “Don’t change the climate … change the system!” I particularly liked that one and would add to that by saying that by changing the system, we could save the planet. The destructive model of capitalism is eradicating life.

You’re not going to believe this, but I agree with some of what Hugo Chavez said. I agree that there is in fact a “ghost in the room,” but we disagree on its name. The ghost isn’t capitalism, it’s socialism, but like Chavez said, no one wants to name it, since doing so would undermine the purpose of the climate summit.

For many, their liberal brand of environmentalism and socialist tendencies fit in perfectly with the climate debate. Blame corporations for all that is wrong with the world, over-regulate them, extract money from the tresuries of these capitalist countries, then use it to “help” developing nations who have far fewer responsibilities for protecting the planet from global warming. It’s really a macro version of what you see progressives trying to do through the tax code. Raise taxes on productive citizens, then use it to subsidize those who lack ambition. It’s the same thing on a global scale, using climate change as a well-developed cover.

If you are truly concerned about global warming, I hope you are equally concerned about how many of your fellow supporters are hell-bent on demonizing industrialized nations and the capitalist system. By the way, isn’t it funny how capitalism is evil, yet they have no qualms about asking for our money?

Dennis Miller makes an excellent point in this video. If the individuals attending the climate summit in Copenhagen really cared about global warming, why wouldn’t they make it a teleconference? Cancel the private jets, limos, and other energy sapping activities. Of course, they would lose their vacation and glitzy surroundings, but at least the whole world wouldn’t have to know that they are hypocrites.

If the organizers of the summit decide to take this advice and have a teleconference next time, it will be in good hands. Before he was a friend of the global warming industry, Al Gore was the self-proclaimed creator of the internet. Who better to handle such a daunting task?

While speaking at a press conference at the climate summit in Copenhagen, a film-maker asked him some questions he wasn’t comfortable answering. The proper thing to do would have been to answer his questions, seeing as though it was a press conference, then use scientific findings to support his claims. Instead of taking this scholarly high road, Professor Schneider’s associates had armed U.N. guards remove the questioner from the premises and ordered his cameraman to stop filming. Here is the exchange caught on tape:

For those who believe global warming is the problem alarmists claim it to be, here is just one reason why people are skeptical. In light of the questions raised by climategate, researchers prefer to bully those asking questions rather than welcome a dialog about the merits of the research. It makes it look like there is something to hide, and contributes to global warming researchers looking more like a cult than a scientific community.