Just wondering: Why do global warmists scream louder than ever that we must do something immediately, even though the evidence proves the Earth hasn’t been heating up?

Perhaps it’s because once enough people see the doomsday prophecy for the money-grabbing scheme it is, it will be impossible to bully people into transferring wealth from the productive sector to those favored by the redistributionists. We are approaching the tipping point, as global warming alarmists have warned. But it’s not the point of temperatures causing irreversible damage. It’s the tipping point of public opinion realizing these false prophets have ulterior motives.

Why is it that 100 percent of nonprofits targeted by the Internal Revenue Service were conservative organizations? How is it that the supposed fix to this discriminatory targeting is to write more rules to justify singling them out? Is there something intentional going on?

While we’re on the topic of money in politics, why is it the Left and their compatriots in the media complain so loudly, but made nary a peep when left-winger George Soros increased his lobbying from $3 million in 2012 to $11 million in 2013? Could it be because their complaint isn’t about money influencing public policy per se, but just the money so spent by conservatives?

For that matter, why is it that the New York Times insists companies don’t have the right to free speech in politics and staunchly opposed the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision upholding corporate campaign spending as a First Amendment right? Could it be because the Times and the rest of the media would exempt themselves from the gag they would use to stifle other corporate political speech? Isn’t it corporate speech when a news organization advocates on its editorial page in favor of stifling others’ speech?

How come the media sees the First Amendment so much more clearly when government proposes putting monitors in newsrooms to determine whether the right kind of news is being published and broadcast? To ask that one is to answer it.

Why do gay-rights activists insist their desires must be satisfied by forcing religious people to violate their sincerely held, long-standing beliefs? Doesn’t the First Amendment guarantee a wedding cake maker protection from the government infringing on his religious beliefs? Doesn’t freedom of religion trump the desire to force someone to sell you a cake?

With irrefutable evidence in Europe that alternative energy policies brought soaring energy prices and increased carbon emissions, while enriching a favored few, why do so many in the U.S. want to copy those failed policies?

In the European Union from 2005-13, residential electricity prices increased 55 percent, and industrial rates rose 26 percent. What is it about massive tax subsidies for renewable energy producers, renewable energy mandates and cap-and-trade-type schemes that make them so appealing, knowing how they failed in Europe? Could a favored few here be hoping to strike it rich at someone else’s expense?

Do people who want to tax the rich really think it will help middle and lower classes? Who do they think ends up paying the tab? And wouldn’t tax advocates consider it double taxation if they had to pay more tax on top of the taxes they already paid on dividends, as they want corporations to do?

Aren’t employees the most likely to suffer when a corporation’s profits are reduced by taxes? How many jobs and pay raises are burned up in higher taxes? Don’t tax advocates understand it is consumers who pay the bill in higher prices when taxes are passed along? Could it be that taxing “rich” corporations isn’t so much about equity and helping the little guy as it is about enriching politicians who want to spend other peoples’ money?

Why is it good that government demands vehicles meet arbitrary miles-per-gallon targets devised by a bureaucrat? Doesn’t the government understand that every time this has been mandated, car manufacturers increased mileage by making cars lighter weight, increasing the likelihood of death in a collision? Who is more likely to be injured or killed when your flimsy Smart car rams into a SUV?

Aren’t people more likely to drive more, burning more fuel, not less, if their vehicles get better mileage? Forcing consumers to buy what they don’t want, and preventing them from buying what they do want, distorts markets, depresses demand and kills jobs. Doesn’t the government realize that dictating consumer choices is precisely why the old Soviet Union’s economy collapsed? Could these miles-per-gallon diktats be more about control than about fuel economy?

Finally, how did politicians become so gullible as to believe the government could force insurance coverage for 30 million more people, while taking control over prices and supply, and do it all without increasing costs? Yeah, no one believed that, even those who voted for it without reading it.