Warmists Talking About Abortion For Midterms

Why? Because very few care about “climate change”

(Reuters) Green billionaire Tom Steyer vowed to make the November congressional elections about climate change. Now he’s talking about abortion and the economy to get his candidates across the finish line.

Funny, I thought Democrats hated those Big 1%ers.

Steyer, a hedge fund manager turned environmentalist, launched a state-of-the-art operation to push voters to elect governors and senators willing to confront global warming. His NextGen Climate Action political committee is on track to spend more than $55 million in this election – an unprecedented amount for an environmentalist group.

But NextGen and other green groups are not talking about climate change as much as one would expect.

Instead, they are paying for TV ads that attack Republican candidates on job creation and corruption, not carbon emissions. Door-to-door canvassers talk about clean water and reproductive rights, not the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would carry crude oil from Canada to U.S. refineries.

Why, you ask?

The reason is simple: climate change isn’t a top concern for most voters. Only 3 percent think it should be the country’s top priority, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling.

So Warmists are yammering on about other issues in an attempt to elect Democrats, who agree that economy killing “climate change” regulations are super-awesome. Despite they themselves refusing to take the plunge and make their own lives “carbon neutral”.

But the win-first approach has its risks, as Republicans can argue that the groups’ unwillingness to let the climate message stand on its own is proof that it doesn’t matter to voters.

“Climate change is like an afterthought in the wider message, which is a tacit admission that on its own it doesn’t move the dial,” said Republican strategist Josh Penry.

However, don’t discount the notion that abortion is part of the “Green” agenda, where they want population control, particularly in the “developing nations”, ie, people of color in Africa and Asia. Many of the more extreme Warmists want population reduction in those areas. Seems rather racist, eh?

And we cannot forget that Warmism is all part of the greater parent belief in Progressivism (nice fascism), a political belief in the Power of the federal government, which seeks to give the federal government more and more control over individual lives, private entities, and the economy.

“Climate change is a huge issue that we’re just pushing under the rug and not dealing with,” said Emily Rowe, 19, as she twirled a hula hoop on the campus of the University of Colorado. “I’m assuming the Democratic Party is more for that. That’s about all I know.”

Sadly, Ms. Rowe represents the typical Democrat voter, all passion and virtually zero knowledge on the issues. And that’s who Democrats are targeting

One population segment needs no convincing: voters under 35 years old who, unlike older voters, see climate change as a top issue. Green groups are targeting young voters, as well as Hispanic and African-American voters, with a sophisticated digital and door-knocking campaign to make sure they don’t stay home on election day.

Every single one of them should have to face the question “what are you doing in your own life to reduce your own carbon footprint?”

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Warmists Talking About Abortion For Midterms”

  1. david7134 says:

    The Dems will always bring up abortion at the last moment. The reason is that there is a divide in conservatives on social issues. By pushing a candidate on abortion, they can negate about 30% of the vote that would ordinarily be going to that individual who may have conservative credentials. Conservatives need to let go of the abortion debate and get our country back.

  2. Neo says:

    EPA wants to ban the use of inert gas argon

    The news release coming with EPA’s proposal also states that “EPA
    is taking this action in response to petitions by the Center for
    Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, Physicians for Social
    Responsibility and others” and “the 72 chemicals are not currently being
    used as inert ingredients in any pesticide product.”

    It seems that EPA simply rubber-stamped some NGO’s “wish list”
    without giving it any further thought. Why else would they even want to
    entertain banning the use of a substance like argon, if there is no
    evidence whatsoever of it being even a potential problem and if it could
    safely be used as an inert ingredient or propellant?

    http://iceagenow.info/2014/10/inert-ingredients-epas-disgrace-du-jour/

  3. Jeffery says:

    This will save Teach some embarrassment. (Who am I kidding, convervabloggers cannot be embarrassed, lol)

    The EPA has not banned nor intends to ban argon.

    Since there are no registered pesticides using argon gas as a propellant it will be dropped off the list of approved excipients.

    The next formulation to use argon will tell the EPA they are using argon and the EPA will say OK.

    Not a ban. Not a restriction.

    So much of what conservative wackos believe is untrue.

    I thought WUWT was a “climate” site? Is the climate battle so over that he’s branching out to lying about other things now?

  4. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Now how do you know what the EPA will do? Are you aware of the idiot decisions coming out of this President and his administration at every level? They are numerous and make no sense.

    I do give you credit, you are one of the most unabashed bigots that I have ever seen, and I used to live in an apartment across from KKK headquarters. You make them look like boy scouts.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    The EPA has not banned nor intends to ban argon.

    Jeffery once again shows a lack of ability to deal with the truth.

    The document listing argon as one of the gases is found here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558-0002

    The supporting letter on this proposal is found here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558-0003

    Quoting the letter:

    Therefore, before any of those inert ingredients that are removed from the list could be used in the future, this type of data on the ingredient would need to be provided and rev iewed by the EPA. Only then would it be possible for the inert ingredient to receive approval as part of a new inert ingredient submission request.

    No logical person could see this as anything but a ban on the gas. If you can use the gas one day and the next it is illegal, it is a ban. Jeffery wants people to think that if a company wants to use the gas, all they have to do is say “we’re using argon” and the EPA will say “okay.”

    That is a lie and not supported by the documents from the EPA.

    A company would have to go through a process to use the gas and overturn the EPA’s ruling. But what is the company seeking to overturn?

    The EPA’s ban on the gas.

    In Jeffery’s world, a ban is not a ban even though the EPA calls it a ban.

  6. Jeffery says:

    Nonsense.

    A ban means the article cannot be used. Argon has not been banned.

  7. Ban: to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict:

    No matter how many times you cover your ears and say LA LA LA LA, it’s a ban

Bad Behavior has blocked 10017 access attempts in the last 7 days.