Conspiracy For Dummies

Ever since Al Gore was vice-president, the expectations for receiving government climate grants have been clear.

Bill Gray got his long-time hurricane research money cut off in 1993 by Al Gore, for refusing to tow the global warming line.

The Secretary of The Interior recently said : “I hope there are no climate deniers working for me

The President of the US recently said : “I don’t have time for a debate of the Flat Earth Society” and skeptics are like “people who believe the moon is made of cheese

The expectations for receiving government climate grants are crystal clear. If you want government money, you will tow the global warming line. Everyone in the profession understands this.

This isn’t a conspiracy – it is Business as Usual corruption by the US Government.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Conspiracy For Dummies

  1. _Jim says:

    Top-down mandates; Instructions to the lower echelon to get in line; S.O.P. for any vertically oriented, hierarchical organization. No ‘discordant’ thought to ‘gum up’ the works in achieving an objective. And for heaven’s sake, no leaks to the press! (The people might otherwise become aware of the fiasco, the hoax, the ‘fraud’ were are attempting to perpetrate.)


  2. Cheyne Gordon says:

    A tow-line may be quite useful if your electric car’s power cell snuffs it.
    But in any other case, toe the line, folks.

  3. elmer says:

    The Club of Rome, of which Al Gore is a member, said this in 1990:
    “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,”

    • _Jim says:

      elmer, it seems a lot of people also really-badly WANT to see a bogey man behind all these nefarious ‘acts’ by politicians. It gives them something to point at, metaphorically speaking. It is easier to view perceived evil in the world this way rather than assign blame on several levels (including one’s own possible complicity through negligence even. Like being ‘taken in’ by some idiot pol who promised ‘hope and change’.

    • _Jim says:

      One could even say the so-called ‘conspirators’ like Algore see ‘conspiracies’! They see humanity as some cooked-up conspiracy to do-in the earth, whereas the truth is the EARTH is fully capable of doing US IN.

  4. norilsk says:

    Money for nothing and chicks for free. That’s how you do it. You get on AGW.

  5. Anto says:

    The Al Gore Effect is not just another conspiracy theory. It’s a proveable (and proven) hypothesis.

    Sure, coincidence isn’t causality, but if the coincidences are too extreme and for too long, then you need to assume the effect is real until proven otherwise,

    Hypothesis: Al Gore causes unnaturally cold weather, wherever he goes.
    Observations: More often than not, the hypothesis proves correct.
    Status: It is more likely than not that Al Gore causes unnaturally cold weather.
    Speculative: Al Gore is actually Mr Freeze:

  6. emsnews says:

    ALL the natural sciences are on the global warming choo-choo gravy train. Whatever someone wants to study, they always tie it in with CO2 global warming and voila! A study about pine months in the Arctic gets funded, studies about frogs in the Amazon get funded, studies about online comments about global warming get funded, etc.

    It is like termites eating away at the foundation of Science.

  7. Ken says:

    Toe, not “tow”. Just sayin’.

    • Lynn Clark says:

      You beat me to it. Expanding just a little bit…

      It is a reference to the act of placing your feet (toes) close to a line you’re not allowed to cross without incurring a penalty of some sort. In common usage, the “line” is most often methaphorical, e.g., don’t cross (or stray from) the party line. My guess is that the phrase originated in military or penal institutions where institutional regimentation requires soldiers/prisoners to toe the line in all kinds of situations. It is a means of control. It forces the person “toeing the line” to unthinkingly respect/observe the rules set down by, and to be subservient to, the “line police”.

      • _Jim says:

        Anybody who has had to ‘fall in’ (literally: fall into formation, forming up a line shoulder to shoulder where everyone’s toes meet up against on a common line in front of them) recognizes this term; one more reason to institute a program for several years of active service in the ‘armed services’ …

  8. mkelly says:

    Recently, Obama met with men who landed on the moon. They are skeptics. I wonder if he asked them if the moon was made of cheese.

  9. tom0mason says:

    No requirement to conspire – “they” just watch

    Makes you feel kinda warm inside – only because they’ve made it so cold on the outside.

    • _Jim says:

      You did notice that Section III titled “Constitutionally Protected Activities” does address First Amendment rights?

      You’ve got to remember, though, that government drones need each and every aspect of their ‘work’ detailed out in painstaking detail. To allow individual thinking on the part of government employees would mean chaos and non-uniformity in the application of the ‘laws’ they enforce through the power vested in the executive branch.


      • tom0mason says:

        But remember as a someone thought to be a suspected terrorists or a supporter of a group thought to be supporting terrorists you may forgo all First Amendment rights as now you as a suspected torrorist supporter may be thought of as a terrorist suspect.
        Just to help here is a helpful list
        1. The government can blacklist you as a suspected terrorist without any evidence whatsoever. This necessary level of discretion will keep our exceptional country safe from people who give government officials “a strange feeling.” The anonymous source close to the investigation has explained, “Our unilateral discretion that is not subject to any oversight or inconvenient checks and balances is a good thing. So trust us.”

        2. You can be ‘Watchlisted’ as a suspected terrorist because your Uncle Mario bought lemon juice from a ‘suspected’ terrorist’s in Sicily. We can’t be too careful about where our distant relatives buy their lemon juice (or olive oil).

        3. The government can blacklist you as a suspected terrorist based on what they think you’re thinking. If our government officials aren’t just two steps ahead of what they think we think we are thinking about contemplating doing, all hell will break loose.

        4. If you’re blacklisted as a suspected terrorist, the government doesn’t have to tell you about it. This is logical because if you’re thought to be a suspected terrorist, it’s none of your damn business, and never has been.

        5. If you suspect, or do happen to find out, that you’re on the Watchlist, the government doesn’t have to tell you why. Suspected terrorists, or those thought to be suspected terrorists, don’t deserve to know why they may be suspected terrorists. This goes without saying as you are a terrorist suspect.

        6. And if you learn that you’re on the Watchlist, you must prove your innocence without the government being required to disclose its evidence against you. Due process, err, what process? The presumption of innocence is not for everyone, as this incorrectly implies you are not guilty. Can’t get a job? You’re a suspected terrorist. You don’t deserve to eat.

        7. Activities protected under the First Amendment are exempted from the Watchlist, unless the supplied representative says otherwise. You can now sleep better knowing that a really smart government employees and contractors are combing through your news articles and blog entries to monitor and ensure only correct usage of terroristic trigger words and phrases; e.g. Fourth Amendment, due process, checks and balances, government accountability, secret surveillance, NSA, bomb, and underwear. Inshalla some words are better left unsaid.

        8. Although only thousands of ordinary citizens may be inaccurately labeled as “terrorists” or “suspected terrorists,” we all make mistakes. Jesus said we should turn the other cheek and forgive the government authorities who abuse their powers and destroy our livelihoods. We strongly advise you to follow this, render unto Caesar what is…

        9. Even if you prove your innocence, the government can refuse to remove your name from the Watchlist. Because they are the government and for good reasons they can.

        All of these reasons for the government’s extraordinary discretion over your life should put your mind at ease. So please calm down, or call the helpline where one of our operatives will be expecting you.

        • tom0mason says:

          Oops I forgot the attribution, ‘mostly’ from Where they keep the sheeple safe.

        • perdebytjie says:

          This is so humorous!

        • _Jim says:

          Looks to me like a goodly number of people could make a case stick against this practice under a violation of ‘freedom of movement’ provisions, since being on the list restricts travel among the states.


          “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as “right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them.”
          – – – – – – –

          Referenced case law:


        • Jason Calley says:

          To summarize: “Citizens are no longer free individuals, but are now domesticated cattle with all the rights that cattle may have.”

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Jim. “Looks to me like a goodly number of people could make a case stick against this practice under a violation of ‘freedom of movement’ provisions, since being on the list restricts travel among the states.”

          Such a case will only stick if the courts are fair and apply the laws justly — and if the executive branch agrees to comply.

        • _Jim says:

          re: Jason Calley says July 25, 2014 at 5:13 pm

          Such a case will only stick if the courts are fair and apply the laws justly — and if the executive branch agrees to comply.

          Well DUH!

          (Sorry Jason, but your comment was on a par with “Water would be dry were it not so wet.” IOW, along the lines of being self-evident, a proposition known to be true by understanding its meaning without needing proof.)


        • tom0mason says:

          The major problems I see are
          1. that official only have to apply a subjective test to those put on the Watchlist.
          2. The existance of the Watchlist is not a secret, the content of Watchlist is not fully defined and so may be secret (could the government legally expose a secret to a suppected terrorist – circular argument ensues)

  10. craigm350 says:

    Govt grant = If I give you money to shower me with praise then you’d better wax lyrical.

  11. Hans Conser says:

    You mean toe the line

  12. Since the “left” generally view government as benefactors and the “right” more so with suspicion or skepticism it’s constructive to site The Guardian here on this issue:

    The US ranks 19 out of 180 countries scored. Putting this into perspective, Somalia and Afghanistan rank at the bottom, and the US just makes the top 10% for least corrupt. On the other hand there are 18 other countries on the list ranked less corrupt than the US.

    When corrupt practices are pointed out and someone dismisses the asserted corruption as being a “conspiracy theory” it’s hard to reconcile this with the fact that government corruption is widely considered one of the major problems still facing the world today.

    Therefore I’d like to pose the following question: If someone asserts that a corrupt claim should be dismissed on the basis that it’s “conspiracy theory” mongering, is such an individual simply an idiot of some type, or can such generalized dismissals be justified intellectually?

  13. RoHA says:

    It’s toe the line. Haven’t you ever read it anywhere? It comes from ferocious 18th century Royal Navy discipline. Barefoot sailors stood in a rigid row with their toes on the line of the deck planking, while a bad-tempered officer looked for reasons to have them flogged. Doesn’t that sound more like what happens in climate science than just pulling on a rope?

Leave a Reply