Obama to propose 'national plan' on climate change

Jun 23, 2013 by Joseph Krauss
US President Barack Obama waves during his speech at the Brandenburg Gate on June 19, 2013 in Berlin. Obama will give a major speech on climate change Tuesday in which he will propose a "national plan" to curb carbon pollution despite resistance from Congress.

US President Barack Obama will give a major speech on climate change Tuesday in which he will propose a "national plan" to curb carbon pollution despite resistance from Congress.

Obama has made taking action on a key goal of his second term but will have to rely on the powers of the presidency as the Republican-led House of Representatives would likely block any fresh legislation.

"I'll lay out my vision for where I believe we need to go—a national plan to reduce , prepare our country for the impacts of climate change, and lead global efforts to fight it," Obama said Saturday.

"We'll need scientists to design new fuels, and farmers to grow them. We'll need engineers to devise new sources of energy, and businesses to make and sell them. We'll need workers to build the foundation for a clean ."

"And we'll need all of us, as citizens, to do our part to preserve God's creation for future generations—our forests and waterways, our croplands and snowcapped peaks," Obama added, in a video statement posted on Twitter.

Past attempts at passing climate change legislation have been stymied in Congress, meaning Obama will likely take executive action, as he did last year by hiking for cars and light trucks.

In Tuesday's speech at Georgetown University, Obama was expected to announce tighter regulations on new and existing power plants—particularly those fired by coal—as well as tougher energy standards for consumer appliances.

Demonstrators rally to call on President Obama to take strong action on the climate crisis, Los Angeles, California, February 17, 2013. US President Barack Obama will give a major speech Tuesday on addressing climate change in which he is expected to propose executive action to cut carbon pollution.

The administration was also expected to make more federal land available for solar and wind projects in a further boost to renewable energy, according to the Politico news website.

It was unclear whether Obama would speak about the Keystone XL pipeline, a massive project to bring oil from Canada's tar sands to the US Gulf Coast that has been slammed by environmentalists and awaits the president's approval.

US government scientists said Thursday that global temperatures last month tied with 1998 and 2005 as the third warmest for the month of May since record-keeping began in 1880.

Obama's presidency has also witnessed a string of massive storms and other severe weather, including severe drought, record wildfires in the West and waves of tornadoes across the South.

A plan backed by Obama to start a "cap-and-trade" system with the first nationwide restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions failed in 2010 in the Senate, even with the president's Democratic Party in control.

Obama's Republican rivals have slammed such efforts as wasteful government overreach, warning that tougher regulations would drive up the cost of energy and further hobble an already weak economy.

The European Union has cap-and-trade systems in place and some experts attribute the lack of US legislation for the slow pace of global talks on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, with China insisting on clearer commitments.

Earlier this month, Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed joint action on climate change—specifically the reduction of hydrofluorocarbons or "super greenhouse gases"—after their first-ever summit in California.

And last week, in a speech in Berlin, Obama said the United States "will do more" to tackle the threat of climate change and that the world must act before it is too late.

"Peace with justice means refusing to condemn our children to a harsher, less hospitable planet," he said on a blistering hot day at Brandenburg Gate.

He said Germany, which is fast building up solar, wind and other renewable energies, and Europe, had led in efforts to battle a warming planet, melting ice caps and rising seas.

He said the United States had also doubled renewable energies, boosted fuel efficiency in cars and brought down carbon emissions, but added: "We know we have to do more and we will do more."

Explore further: Recently discovered microbe is key player in climate change

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US, China agree to end 'super greenhouse gases'

Jun 08, 2013

China agreed Saturday with the United States to scale back production of "super greenhouse gases" used in refrigerators and air conditioners in a joint bid to fight climate change.

Activists press Obama to move on climate

Feb 12, 2013

Activists are stepping up pressure on US President Barack Obama to issue concrete plans to battle climate change, with a major rally planned in Washington following his annual address to Congress.

US businesses call for climate law

Apr 10, 2013

Several major companies issued a joint call Wednesday for the United States to enact legislation to battle climate change, saying that the issue was critical to their businesses.

Recommended for you

Coal-rich Poland ready to block EU climate deal

2 hours ago

European Union leaders meeting in Brussels to set their new greenhouse gas emissions plan are facing staunch opposition from coal-reliant Poland and other East European countries who say their economies would ...

EU leaders seek last-minute climate deal

7 hours ago

European Union leaders came under pressure Thursday to strike a deal aimed at bolstering Brussels as a trailblazer in fighting global climate change as negotiations went down to the wire.

Research team studies 'regime shifts' in ecosystems

9 hours ago

The prehistory of major ecological shifts spanning multiple millennia can be read in the fine print of microscopic algae, according to a new study led by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mr Anderson
3.8 / 5 (20) Jun 23, 2013
Years from now, former Republican leaders from present day will stand trial for crimes against nature and humanity. I'm not sure what the punishment should be, but I would lean toward severe.
mememine69
1.7 / 5 (24) Jun 23, 2013
Lazy news editors,
We are already up to date so give it up.
In 28 years science has only said it COULD be a crisis and never said it WILL be a crisis so how close to the point of no return from unstoppable warming will the scientists take us before they say their crisis is as real as they say a comet hit crisis is as in eventual and unavoidable. They have NEVER said anything close to inevitable and find us one single IPCC warning not swimming in maybes. 28 years of maybe means it won't be!
*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
*Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.
*Obama had not mentioned the crisis in two State of the Unions addresses.
*REAL planet lovers are former believers who are happy not disappointed a crisis was exaggerated.*
When lazy copy and paste news editors, pandering politicians and the same lab coat consultants that gave us pesticides all agree on the same thing……………………
mememine69
1.5 / 5 (23) Jun 23, 2013
Years from now in a real civilized society it will be a WAR crime to utter CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children as you fear mongers march our kids into the greenhouse gas ovens of your exaggerated CO2 crisis. Bush admires your 28 years of needless CO2 panic. Who's the neocon again? This was your Iraq War without a real enemy so call it a day and move on before this does to progressivism what Bush did for the neocons.
Mr Anderson
4 / 5 (20) Jun 23, 2013
Years from now in a real civilized society it will be a WAR crime to utter CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children as you fear mongers march our kids into the greenhouse gas ovens of your exaggerated CO2 crisis.


Exaggerated? The estimations of the warming come from pure Science using modelling and looking at what has happened in the past. I would suggest you take the warnings from the Scientific community seriously. This is their bread and butter after all.
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (23) Jun 23, 2013
Years from now in a real civilized society it will be a WAR crime to utter CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children as you fear mongers march our kids into the greenhouse gas ovens of your exaggerated CO2 crisis.


Exaggerated? The estimations of the warming come from pure Science using modelling and looking at what has happened in the past. I would suggest you take the warnings from the Scientific community seriously. This is their bread and butter after all.


There are no diary farms in Greenland. There are no vineyards in Scotland. It has been too cold for over 600 years. But there were: For over 500 years between 850-1350 CE, it was warm enough in the Northern Hemisphere for dairy farms and grape vineyards in locations where, today, it is too cold.

Exaggerated? Yes, exaggerated.
Neinsense99
3.6 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2013
"There are no diary farms in Greenland." There are no "diary farms" anywhere, unless science has learned how to grow empty journals. That I would love to see that. (At the risk of seeming cheesy, let's see how long I can milk this typo for cheap humor before becoming too cowed to continue...)

The hypocrisy of mememoron's accusation of exaggeration while alluding to "gas ovens" should be apparent to any reader with at least a semi-functional capability for rational thought.
ekim
5 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
In 28 years science has only said it COULD be a crisis and never said it WILL be a crisis...

Could you explain this to my insurance company? Perhaps they will lower my rates.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
"Years from now in a real civilized society it will be a WAR crime to utter CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children as you fear mongers march our kids into the greenhouse gas ovens of your exaggerated CO2 crisis." - NoNoNoNotYours

Oh look. Another mentally diseased Republican boot licker. Repub-Licen the jack boots of Big Oil.
djr
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
Shootist: "There are no vineyards in Scotland."

Yes there are.

http://food.list....wn-wine/
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2013
Last year, I repeatedly posted a dozen links refuting ShooTard's dishonest claim that there are no vineyards in England.

He just refuses to stop telling lies.

How typically Conservative of him.

Neinsense99
3.4 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2013
Shootist: "There are no vineyards in Scotland."

Yes there are.

http://food.list....wn-wine/

Do they have any La Brea tar pits?
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 23, 2013
Shootist: "There are no vineyards in Scotland."

Yes there are.

http://food.list....wn-wine/

Do they have any La Brea tar pits?


Tiny young plants.
Is is commercial?
When did it open?
Has it been in existence for 500 years?
Does it produce higher quality grapes than vineyards in France? (When King John wrote of the Vineyards in Scotland he always praised the quality as being better than any wind grapes grown in France).

Call me in 499 years.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
From the article;
US President Barack Obama will give a major speech on climate change Tuesday in which he will propose a "national plan" to curb carbon pollution despite resistance from Congress.

Good. I'm glad that President Obama is addressing this issue. We know that the republican / turd party (i mean tea party) is just a corporate tool for the fossil fuel industry lobby and will object and fight anything President Obama just on principle alone (the principle of being a rightwing ass).

Within his capabilities, I can see him actually committing us to some big goals that the W would not. Goals for the reduction of CO2 being chief among them.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (21) Jun 23, 2013
Years from now in a real civilized society it will be a WAR crime to utter CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children as you fear mongers march our kids into the greenhouse gas ovens of your exaggerated CO2 crisis. Bush admires your 28 years of needless CO2 panic. Who's the neocon again? This was your Iraq War without a real enemy so call it a day and move on before this does to progressivism what Bush did for the neocons.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.

One wearies of your constant pecking at one aspect of a subject like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
2012: second costliest year for weather and climate-related disasters

http://www.thereg...in_2012/

The universe just isn't unfolding the way Republican ideology claims it must.

Must be caused by Lucifer.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2013
ShooTard "Tiny young plants." - are growing in your brain.

I believe they are the cause of your mental disease.

Seek Medical help, Tardieboy.
Mr Anderson
4 / 5 (16) Jun 24, 2013
I'm looking forward to Obama's speech. It could go down in history. But just when you think the worlds leaders are finally coming to their senses and looking to address the obvious problem, here comes along this plonker who very scarily has a real chance of becoming PM of Australia in a couple of months.

http://www.youtub...QisoZqx4

If this dopey climate change denier gets in then Australia will certainly go backwards as a Nation.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 24, 2013
"If this dopey climate change denier gets in then Australia will certainly go backwards as a "Nation.

Yup. if that moron is elected he will damage Australia significantly.

I suggest you work to defeat him.
Sinister1811
3.4 / 5 (20) Jun 24, 2013
If this dopey climate change denier gets in then Australia will certainly go backwards as a Nation.


Exactly. Sadly, most people will probably vote that way in the upcoming election, because a lot of people are blindly conservative, and are still whining about the carbon tax. And all you hear about in the media much of the time is Labor's "failed leadership". I hope that there's still hope for Labor. There are still too many AGW denialists here.
praos
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 24, 2013
On this site there was a post blaming CFCs for AGW and claiming that CO2 has nothing to do with it; is it already forgotten? The theory was convincing, the fit fabulous. And Obama, never mentioning nukes, and full of accolades for Germany (turning to coal), simply unmasked himself as a zealot & fundamentalist of the green religion, all his God-spins notwithstanding.
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (21) Jun 24, 2013
On this site there was a post blaming CFCs for AGW and claiming that CO2 has nothing to do with it; is it already forgotten? The theory was convincing, the fit fabulous.

And, quite wrong, has was subsequently shown.

Did you miss that part? Or, just chose to ignore it?
animah
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 24, 2013
Okay so deny global warming if you really feel contrarian. But globalchange.MIT.edu calculated last year that the healthcare cost of pollution was upwards of $100 Billion per year in China alone and it keeps increasing every year. I shudder to think what this might amount to globally.

Never mind warming, isn't fixing children's health worth it?

If there is a rational argument that industry can self-regulate, I want to hear it. Because they have never, ever been able to do it anywhere in the world without a big Govt stick.

So why on Earth would you want to do things like destroy the EPA? What market mechanism might magically start working tomorrow where this was never possible before, anywhere?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2013
(Warning...cynicism ahead)
isn't fixing children's health worth it?

Obviously not - as there's no money to be made from healthy children...but billions of dollars from unhealthy ones.
...and since 'worth' it is measured in dollars...
djr
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2013
"Has it been in existence for 500 years?"

Please show us references to support your assertion that there were vineyards in Scotland for 500 years.

How is it that you select a couple of very limited facts such as vineyards in Scotland, and dairy farms in Greenland to support your hypothesis that the mwp was warmer than today - but you ignore all the scientifically developed proxy data that disputes this assertion? Here - take your pick.

http://en.wikiped...ison.png
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2013
"Never mind warming, isn't fixing children's health worth it?" - animah

Not according to American Republicans, TeaPublicans, and Libertarians.

Republicans are opposes to universal child health care, oppose laws that restrict child labor, opposed the provision of school lunches for low income children, and on and on it goes.

The Libertarian party platform holds provisions that legalize child molestation and child prostitution provide the child is a willing participant.

Oh, and if those molested children get pregnant? The Republicans and TeaTards support laws that would forbid them from having a potentially life saving abortion.

They believe that if a 10 year old gets pregnant she should be forced to carry the child to full term.

freethinking
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 24, 2013
So sockpupper VD, now will come deepsand, sinister1811 8 ball and 6 of 28 to rank you up.

It's always interesting that these other names crop up most often in the same order.

Progressives such as you lie, cheat, steal, vote, and vote often
gmurphy
4.1 / 5 (15) Jun 24, 2013
@freethinking, yes, yes, it's a all a conspiracy to keep a few good right-wing conservatives down, clearly the progressives, the NSA, the RSA and anyone who supports climate science is in on the plot, oh noes :P
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 24, 2013
"BOSTON (AP) — A group of environmentalists wants Massachusetts to be the first state to adopt a so-called carbon tax.

The Committee for a Green Economy tells the Boston Globe (http://b.globe.com/14Szxr0) that it's launching a campaign to get the signatures needed to put the issue on the 2014 ballot.

The tax would impose new levies on gasoline and other fossils fuels, based on how much carbon dioxide they produce when burned. The aim is to fight climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels. The committee says the tax could generate $2.5 billion in revenue annually."
http://www.boston...ory.html
This will be great.
A senate seat, a governor's seat and all members of congress are up for election in 2014 in MA.
Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2013
Shootist: "There are no vineyards in Scotland."

Yes there are.

http://food.list....wn-wine/

Do they have any La Brea tar pits?


Tiny young plants.
Is is commercial?
When did it open?
Has it been in existence for 500 years?
Does it produce higher quality grapes than vineyards in France? (When King John wrote of the Vineyards in Scotland he always praised the quality as being better than any wind grapes grown in France).

Call me in 499 years.

Will your opinions have changed by then?
SteveS
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 24, 2013
Tiny young plants.
Is is commercial?
When did it open?
Has it been in existence for 500 years?
Does it produce higher quality grapes than vineyards in France? (When King John wrote of the Vineyards in Scotland he always praised the quality as being better than any wind grapes grown in France).

Call me in 499 years.


You are so specific about the King John quote you must have a link or source to back it up, can you share it please.
djr
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2013
You are so specific about the King John quote you must have a link or source to back it up, can you share it please.

I am already waiting for support for the claim that there were vineyards in Scotland for 500 years. Shootist seems to prefer the hit and run strategy. Say something outrageous - and move on to the next article. No need to be factually accurate.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) Jun 24, 2013
In 28 years science has only said it COULD be a crisis and never said it WILL be a crisis...

Could you explain this to my insurance company? Perhaps they will lower my rates.

Have you experienced greater insurance claims over the years?
If yes, then great the insurance companies are being judicious.
If no, then the insurance companies are cashing in on the AGW propaganda.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2013
All cynicism aside, I think everyone would like to have a healthy, lush, robust and clean environment in which to live. Unrestrained and unregulated capitalism has made that difficult option in many locations, and those locations are poisoning the rest of us. I say, lets force them to keep their pollution to themselves and pay for their own cleanup.

Lets put a stop to this nonsense and put some dirty people out of business; shut em down! Start with the worst offenders (coal), and work downward until it effects the lawnmower you buy.

ekim
5 / 5 (10) Jun 25, 2013
In 28 years science has only said it COULD be a crisis and never said it WILL be a crisis...

Could you explain this to my insurance company? Perhaps they will lower my rates.

Have you experienced greater insurance claims over the years?
If yes, then great the insurance companies are being judicious.
If no, then the insurance companies are cashing in on the AGW propaganda.

Tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, droughts all cost money to clean up afterwards. Hard to cash in when so many dollars are going out recently. To stay competitive in business companies can't afford to remain in the past hoping for blue skies, they must plan for future disasters which COULD happen.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 25, 2013
So sockpupper VD, now will come deepsand, sinister1811 8 ball and 6 of 28 to rank you up.

It's always interesting that these other names crop up most often in the same order.

Progressives such as you lie, cheat, steal, vote, and vote often

free_of_thinking is like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 25, 2013
In 28 years science has only said it COULD be a crisis and never said it WILL be a crisis...

Could you explain this to my insurance company? Perhaps they will lower my rates.

Have you experienced greater insurance claims over the years?
If yes, then great the insurance companies are being judicious.
If no, then the insurance companies are cashing in on the AGW propaganda.

AO is like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete..
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 25, 2013
Hard to cash in when so many dollars are going out recently.

Not when the govt bails them out.
Why shouldn't people rebuild on flood plains or hurricane prone beaches if Uncle Sam will pick up the tab?
Instead of using $$ to measure damages, a more objective means should be used: sq ft of housing and business damaged, miles of road washed out....
Replacements costs keep rising because of inflation so $$ measures are useless for comparisons with history, but good for AGWites.
geokstr
1 / 5 (14) Jun 25, 2013
In 28 years science has only said it COULD be a crisis and never said it WILL be a crisis...

Could you explain this to my insurance company? Perhaps they will lower my rates.

Why should they?

They are only being prudent. It's absolutely certain that every time any kind of natural disaster whatsoever occurs, they will be deluged with claims for "global warming", even if there is no evidence of it. They know they will be under tremendous pressure from juries, government, "consumer" groups, "unbiased", "objective" "news" media and "expert" paid witnesses to pay up, facts be damned.

They are not conceding the validity of AGW by raising their rates, only factoring in how the system works against their future liabilities.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2013
In 28 years science has only said it COULD be a crisis and never said it WILL be a crisis...

Could you explain this to my insurance company? Perhaps they will lower my rates.

Have you experienced greater insurance claims over the years?
If yes, then great the insurance companies are being judicious.
If no, then the insurance companies are cashing in on the AGW propaganda.

And ta da, doesn't understand how insurance works either. Why am I NOT surprised?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (17) Jun 25, 2013
In 28 years science has only said it COULD be a crisis and never said it WILL be a crisis...

Could you explain this to my insurance company? Perhaps they will lower my rates.

Have you experienced greater insurance claims over the years?
If yes, then great the insurance companies are being judicious.
If no, then the insurance companies are cashing in on the AGW propaganda.

And ta da, doesn't understand how insurance works either. Why am I NOT surprised?

Errrmmm... because you are stupid.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 26, 2013
In 28 years science has only said it COULD be a crisis and never said it WILL be a crisis...

Could you explain this to my insurance company? Perhaps they will lower my rates.

Have you experienced greater insurance claims over the years?
If yes, then great the insurance companies are being judicious.
If no, then the insurance companies are cashing in on the AGW propaganda.

And ta da, doesn't understand how insurance works either. Why am I NOT surprised?

Errrmmm... because you are stupid.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 26, 2013
Could you explain this to my insurance company? Perhaps they will lower my rates.

Why should they?

They are only being prudent. It's absolutely certain that every time any kind of natural disaster whatsoever occurs, they will be deluged with claims for "global warming", even if there is no evidence of it. They know they will be under tremendous pressure from juries, government, "consumer" groups, "unbiased", "objective" "news" media and "expert" paid witnesses to pay up, facts be damned.

They are not conceding the validity of AGW by raising their rates, only factoring in how the system works against their future liabilities.

You clearly have no idea what liability insurance is and how it works.

One cannot file a claim for loss due to "global warming," but only for specific named covered causes such as fire, wind, flood, etc..

Insurance companies are raising rates because they expect the incidence rates of such events to increase with global warming.
ekim
5 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2013
Replacements costs keep rising because of inflation so $$ measures are useless for comparisons with history, but good for AGWites.

We know inflation rates and can adjust for them. We can also compare historical extreme weather events to current events in frequency and intensity. Both have been increasing in recent years. Will these events continue to increase or subside to historical levels, is an important question which needs to be addressed.
They are not conceding the validity of AGW by raising their rates, only factoring in how the system works against their future liabilities.

They are conceding an increase in frequency and intensity, while anticipating that this trend will continue. The "cause" of the event is irreverent to me, only the damage incurred and being insured against said damage concern me.
In a free market economy, the insurance company who can navigate these uncertainties the best will be the most profitable.
dtxx
1.5 / 5 (12) Jun 26, 2013
Insurance companies are conceding nothing. They find that public perception will allow them to raise their rates, and they are doing so accordingly. Does anyone here know what business insurance companies are really in? It doesn't sound like it. They are not there to mitigate losses or smooth out the bumps in the road. They are in business to make profit. If they can claim they need to raise rates and that view will largely be accepted by customers, they will do so regardless of any other factors.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 26, 2013
Insurance companies are conceding nothing. They find that public perception will allow them to raise their rates, and they are doing so accordingly. Does anyone here know what business insurance companies are really in? It doesn't sound like it. They are not there to mitigate losses or smooth out the bumps in the road. They are in business to make profit. If they can claim they need to raise rates and that view will largely be accepted by customers, they will do so regardless of any other factors.

US insurance companies are regulated by the States; they cannot arbitrarily set rates as they desire.

Changing rates generally requires that they file such rates with each state in which they issue policies, along with evidence as to their claims loss ratio in that state, the underlying assumptions as to expected future claims loss ratios, and the actuarial calculations that were used in computing the proposed new rates.
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2013
"Progressives such as you lie, cheat, steal, vote, and vote often" - FreeTard

Yes, we are all in this massive conspiracy against you, to make you look Stupid.

We even have secret decoder rings and have bugged your phone and have a toilet cam in your bathroom.

You know those noises you here in your house late at night? That is one of us keeping a close eye on you.

We even have a code name for you. it is "Mr Delusion".

Here is our best surveillance video of you so far.

http://mix4fun.co...too-long
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 26, 2013
They are not there to mitigate losses or smooth out the bumps in the road. They are in business to make profit


That's why insurance companies created Underwriter's Laboratory and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.