Tag: Al Gore

Rick Scott Files Suit Over Possible Election Fraud By Democrats

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

100710RickScott-2_566426c

FoxNews.com reports that

Accusing Democrats of a coordinated effort to “steal the election,” Republican Senate candidate Rick Scott filed explosive lawsuits late Thursday against the top election officials in two heavily Democratic counties, as three major races in the state appeared headed for recounts and votes continue to be tallied.

In his lawsuit against Broward County, Scott and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) allege that officials there are continuing to hide critical information about the number of votes cast and counted. And in a parallel suit against Palm Beach County, Scott and the NRSC charge that the election supervisor illegally used her own judgment to determine voter intent when reviewing damaged absentee ballots.

“I will not stand idly by while unethical liberals try to steal an election,” Scott said at a press conference outside the Governor’s Mansion, as he slammed potential “rampant fraud” in the race.

The bombshell litigation comes hours after Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio, in an extraordinary series of tweets that alleged incompetence if not outright complicity by Florida officials, charged that Democratic lawyers were “descending on” the state in a calculated attempt to “change the results” and “try and steal” several statewide races.

…”Late Tuesday night, our win was projected to be around 57,000 votes,” Scott, who is currently Florida’s governor, told reporters. “By Wednesday morning, that lead dropped to 38,000. By Wednesday evening, it was around 30,000. This morning, it was around 21,000. Now, it is 15,000.”

He continued: “On election night, Broward County said there were 634,000 votes cast. At 1 a.m. today, there were 695,700 ballots cast on election day. At 2:30 p.m. today, the number was up to 707,223 ballots cast on Election Day. And we just learned, that the number has increased to 712,840 ballots cast on election day. In Palm Beach County, there are 15,000 new votes found since election night.

“So, it has been over 48 hours since the polls closed and Broward and Palm Beach Counties are still finding and counting ballots – and the Supervisors – Brenda Snipes and Susan Bucher – cannot seem to say how many ballots still exist or where these ballots came from, or where they have been,” Scott said.

A recount now appears imminent not only in Scott’s race, but also in the agricultural commissioner race and Florida’s high-profile gubernatorial contest between Democrat Andrew Gillum and Republican Ron DeSantis, based on new vote totals — even though Gillum has already conceded.

Speaking to Fox News’ “Hannity” Thursday night, Scott said, “we don’t know how many votes they’re gonna come up with. But it seems they’re going to try to come up with as many votes as it takes to win this election. … We’re gonna fight this, and we’re gonna win.”

Earlier in the evening, he was just as direct: “No rag tag group of liberal activists or lawyers from D.C. will be allowed to steal this election from the voters in the state of Florida,” he said outside his home.

…And, that is exactly what is happening…not only in Florida, but in Georgia and Arizona, as well.

The Democratic Party’s insatiable thirst for power at any price has driven them for several decades to attempt to usurp the will of the American People via Judicial Activism.

Whether it is threatening legal action or a citywide riot, as Harold Ford, Sr. did the night that former Memphis City School s Board President W.W. Herenton narrowly defeated incumbent Mayor Dick Hackett in a controversial fashion to become the city’s first black Mayor, Democrats demand to “win” elections, even when they don’t.

Recounts in Broward County are nothing new.

Remember the Presidential Election of 2000 featuring the Democrats’ Al Gore vs. George W. Bush?

Per USNews.com,

At 3 a.m. on November 8, Gore conceded to Bush when he pulled 50,000 votes ahead and broadcasters put Florida’s 25 electoral votes into the Republican’s win column. But within two hours, Bush’s lead in the state had shrunk and the small margin triggered an automatic recount under Florida law. Overnight, concerns about voting irregularities emerged in places like Palm Beach County, where a punch-card ballot with a format that was easily misread resulted in many disqualified votes.

Later on November 9, Gore’s team demanded a manual recount in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Volusia counties. News outlets carried images of Florida election officials staring at hanging, dimpled, and pregnant chads on Florida’s punch-card ballots, trying to “discern the intent” of the voters. Bush’s lawyers argued to block the recounts; several more attempts to stop, or protect, the recounts and ballot certifications also were filed. On November 24, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Bush’s appeal of a Florida high court ruling that allowed hand recounts to proceed.

The legal wrangling only intensified. On November 26, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who doubled as state campaign co-chair for Bush, certified voting results that gave Bush a 537-vote lead. Gore’s team won a court hearing to challenge those totals. On December 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether the Florida Supreme Court had overstepped its authority in managing recount issues. On December 8, Florida’s high court upheld the manual recount. The next day, Bush successfully appealed for a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the recount. Bush’s team argued that the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all citizens disqualified a manual recount because Florida’s counties had followed differing vote-counting procedures. The Gore team demanded that every vote be counted. On December 12, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 vote, stopped the Florida recount. Though Gore received more popular votes than Bush, he conceded the next day. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Thank God that He inspired our Founding Fathers to create a Constitutional Republic instead of a mob-ruled Democracy.

Can you imagine living under a “President” Al Gore?

Yikes. That chills me to the bone. Get it? Al Gore…Global Warming…?

Moving on.

It never fails. A Republican Candidate has been victorious by a narrow margin and then, the next day or so, new votes have been “found”.

I wonder if they “found” the Broward County votes in the trunk of Broward native Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

If the Dems had won on Tuesday as big as they have claimed, they would not be trying to pull political shenanigans in the races in Arizona, Georgia, and Florida.

I am glad to see Rick Scott filing suit and fighting this garbage.

There is no way that the Democrats deserve to win any of these decisions being recounted.

By the way, if Gillum wins the Florida Gubernatorial Election and then gets indicted and found guilty from the FBI Investigation into his corruption as Tallahassee Mayor, will he serve from jail?

Some “New Bi-partisan Era”, Pelosi.

Sheesh.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Reality…What a Concept: Trump’s New National Security Policy will Eliminate “Climate Change” as a National Security Threat

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

untitled (210)

Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised. — Charles Krauthammer

TheFederalist.com reports that

The Trump administration will reverse course from previous Obama administration policy, eliminating climate change from a list of national security threats. The National Security Strategy to be released on Monday will emphasize the importance of balancing energy security with economic development and environmental protection, according to a source who has seen the document and shared excerpts of a late draft.

“Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system,” a draft of the National Security Strategy slated to be released on Monday said. “U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.”

This matches President Trump’s vision, sometimes shared using his trademark hyperbole, that the United States needs to emphasize national security and economic growth over climate change.

During his successful campaign, Trump mocked Obama’s placement of climate change in the context of national security. Here’s a sample of his approach from a campaign speech in Hilton Head, South Carolina, in late 2015:

“So Obama’s always talking about the global warming, that global warming is our biggest and most dangerous problem, OK? No, no, think of it. I mean, even if you’re a believer in global warming, ISIS is a big problem, Russia’s a problem, China’s a problem. We’ve got a lot of problems. By the way, the maniac in North Korea is a problem. He actually has nuclear weapons, right? That’s a problem.

We’ve got a lot of problems. We’ve got a lot of problems. That’s right, we don’t win anymore. He said we want to win. We don’t win anymore. We’re going to win a lot — if I get elected, we’re going to win a lot.

(Applause)

We’re going to win so much — we’re going to win a lot. We’re going to win a lot. We’re going to win so much you’re all going to get sick and tired of winning. You’re going to say oh no, not again. I’m only kidding. You never get tired of winning, right? Never.

(Applause)

But think of it. So Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and the — a lot of it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it. And look, I want clean air and I want clean water. That’s my global — I want clean, clean crystal water and I want clean air. And we can do that, but we don’t have to destroy our businesses, we don’t have to destroy our —

And by the way, China isn’t abiding by anything. They’re buying all of our coal; we can’t use coal anymore essentially. They’re buying our coal and they’re using it. Now when you talk about the planet, it’s so big out there — we’re here, they’re there, it’s like they’re our next door neighbor, right, in terms of the universe.”

The draft of the National Security Strategy makes this approach policy, emphasizing national security and economic growth over climate change.

President Obama made climate change, and the burdensome regulations that accompany its focus, a primary focus of his administration, including in his National Security Strategy released in 2015. “[W]e are working toward an ambitious new global climate change agreement to shape standards for prevention, preparedness, and response over the next decade,” that report said.

“In some ways, [climate change] is akin to the problem of terrorism and ISIL,” Obama said at climate talks in Paris in 2015. During a weekly address, Obama said “Today, there is no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

In September 2016, President Obama released a memorandum requiring federal agencies to consider the effects of climate change in the development of national security-related doctrine, policies, and plans. All of this alarmed critics concerned with more pressing security risks.

By contrast, President Trump’s National Security Strategy will focus on conventional and immediate national security risks. The draft says, in part:

“North Korea seeks the capability to kill millions of Americans with nuclear weapons. Iran supports terrorist groups and openly calls for our destruction. Jihadist terrorist organizations such as ISIS and al Qaeda are determined to attack the United States and radicalize Americans with their hateful ideology. States and non-state actors undermine social order with drug and human trafficking networks, which drive violent crimes and cause thousands of American deaths each year…. Strengthening control over our borders and immigration system is central to national security, economic prosperity, and the rule of law. Terrorists, drug traffickers, and criminal cartels exploit porous borders and threaten U.S. security and public safety. These actors adapt quickly to outpace our defenses.”

As for climate change, the draft report says “The United States will remain a global leader in reducing traditional pollution, as well as greenhouse gases, while growing its economy. This achievement, which can serve as model to other countries, flows from innovation, technology breakthroughs, and energy efficiency gains –not from onerous regulation.”

Have you ever wondered why Modern American Liberals are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars were sunk into these so-called green projects, through all 8 years of the Obama administration.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals personal mantras, they believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal…

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do Modern American Liberals continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science birthed by the P.T. Barnum of our time, Al Gore, an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1.  Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama and Hillary. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. Obama perpetuated it because he had political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Liberals continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recalled, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost, and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Planet will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public now, with Trump proclaiming that “Climate Change” never was the “National Security Threat” that Obama claimed it to be?

How will they distract from the immature, absurd, and corrupt nature of their ongoing National Temper Tantrum over the lost of the 2016 Presidential Election?

Perhaps, they can get the Goreacle to present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly at the Box Office, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ

Trump’s Paris Climate Accord Speech: American Sovereignty is Cool Again

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

trump

The thunderclap which you may have heard at 3:32 EDT yesterday was not the result of a Climate-Changing Storm System as seen in the ridiculous movie “The Day After Tomorrow”.

It was the sound of the butt cheeks of those whose worship the Gospel According to Al Gore slamming together in unison as our American President fulfilled another Campaign Promise and got us out of an agreement made by Former President Barack Hussein Obama, which would have cost American Taxpayer Money and American Jobs, which were to be sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s Legacy.

Here is an excerpt from President Trump’s Historic Speech, courtesy of WhiteHouse.gov…

The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense.  They don’t put America first.  I do, and I always will.  (Applause.) The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance.  You see what’s happening.  It’s pretty obvious to those that want to keep an open mind.

At what point does America get demeaned?  At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?   We want fair treatment for its citizens, and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers.  We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore.  And they won’t be.  They won’t be.

I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.  (Applause.)  I promised I would exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve America’s interests.  Many trade deals will soon be under renegotiation.  Very rarely do we have a deal that works for this country, but they’ll soon be under renegotiation.  The process has begun from day one.  But now we’re down to business.

Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund — nice name — which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments.  So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else.  Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.

The Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion — nobody else is even close; most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism.  That’s where they came.  Believe me, they didn’t come from me.  They came just before I came into office.  Not good.  And not good the way they took the money.

In 2015, the United Nation’s departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 billion per year as “peanuts,” and stated that “the $100 billion is the tail that wags the dog.”  In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020.  And nobody even knows where the money is going to.  Nobody has been able to say, where is it going to?

Of course, the world’s top polluters have no affirmative obligations under the Green Fund, which we terminated.  America is $20 trillion in debt.  Cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vital infrastructure.  Millions of our citizens are out of work.  And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us.  So think of that.

There are serious legal and constitutional issues as well.  Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives.  Thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.  (Applause.)  Our Constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it.  And I will.

Staying in the agreement could also pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly.  It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal.

The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time.  In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point — as bad as it is — not an end point.  And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability.  Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.

As President, I have one obligation, and that obligation is to the American people.  The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.  It is time to exit the Paris Accord — (applause) — and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country.

It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — along with many, many other locations within our great country — before Paris, France.  It is time to make America great again.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

No, thank you, Mr. President.

“Putting America First.” What a concept.

President Trump is working hard to fulfill his promise of making America great again.

Former President Obama was bound and determined during his 8 long years as President to make America into just another nation, assigning American Exceptionalism to the trash heap of  history.

His pure ignorance to America’s place in the world was overwhelming. Only by standing up to the thug nations represented at the UN and as President Trump mentioned, those who would ‘demean” us, will America be respected, and left alone, as the sovereign nation that we are.

Obama’s bowing and scraping, like a leader of a country who occupied a subservient position to nations filled with barbarians, who would slit every American’s throat, if given the chance, was an stunning display of naiveté and downright ignorance.

The moment that Barack Hussein Obama took office in January of 2009, the sovereignty of the Shining City Upon a Hill was placed in peril.

Barack Hussein Obama, beginning with his World Apology Tour, proclaimed to the world that America was just another nation, as subservient to the whims of the United Nations, as any third world nation.

After terrorists murdered four Americans at the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, Obama stepped in front of the General Assembly of United Nations, like a little school boy, repeating the lie which he and his staff concocted, that it was some little unwatched Youtube Video that caused the Muslims’ actions over there.

There is a reason that the Headquarters of the United Nations is in New York City in New York State in the United States of America.

We are not their servants. In fact, the United Nations would not exist if not for America.

So, what does being a “sovereign” nation mean?

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above our safe space-seeking Modern American Liberals, who do not believe in American Exceptionalism and our Sovereignty as a Free Nation, in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where these “smartest people in the room” are not even fit enough to tie their boots.

We are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws, the most important of which is The Constitution of the United States, which guarantees us, as a Free People, the right to cast our vote from whomever we please, which we did on November 8th, 2016, when we elected Donald J. Trump at the 45th President of the United States of America..

We are Americans.

We man up and we handle our own problems.

Yesterday, the world was put on notice. The United States of America will no longer be played as a patsy.

Being a Sovereign Nation is cool, again.

AMERICA FIRST.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Earth Day Celebrated. The Climate Changed: An Analysis of a Psuedo-Science

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

untitled (137)

Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised. — Charles Krauthammer

Foxnews.com reports that

March for Science rallies were held across the country Saturday in response to what organizers and attendees see as increasing attacks on science and concerns about looming cuts in government spending.

“When scientists were told on January 25 to be silent, this rally was conceived,” poet Jane Hirshfield told a rain-soaked crowd at a rally near the Washington Monument, footsteps from the White House that President Trump took over on January 20.

Hirshfield was preceded on stage by New Wave star Thomas Dolby, who sang his 1982, techo-influenced hit “She Blinded Me with Science.”

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges

Trump critics say they are concerned about the president’s proposed cutbacks for the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health, his administration’s skepticism about the cause of climate change and other science-related issues.  

However, organizers say the march was political but not partisan — to in fact promote the understanding of science and defending it from attacks, including a proposed 20 percent cutback at the NIH.

“It’s not about the current administration,” said co-organizer and public health researcher Caroline Weinberg. “The truth is we should have been marching for science 30 years ago, 20 years, 10 years ago. … The current (political) situation took us from kind of ignoring science to blatantly attacking it. And that seems to be galvanizing people in a way it never has before.”

The rallies, coinciding with Earth Day, were held in more than 500 cities worldwide including New York, Chicago and Geneva.

Marchers in Geneva carried signs that read, “Science — A Candle in the Dark” and “Science is the Answer.”

“We are marching today to remind people, especially our lawmakers, about the significance of science,” Bill Nye, a TV science educator, said at the Washington rally.

“Rigorous science is critical to my administration’s efforts to achieve the twin goals of economic growth and environmental protection,” Trump said in a statement as the rallies began.

“My administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks. As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.”

In London, physicists, astronomers, biologists and celebrities gathered for a march past the city’s most celebrated research institutions. Supporters carried signs showing images of a double helix and chemical symbols.

The protest was putting scientists, who generally shy away from advocacy and whose work depends on objective experimentation, into a more public position.

Signs and banners readied for the Washington rally reflected anger, humor and obscure scientific references, such as “No Taxation without Taxonomy.”

Taxonomy is the science of classifying animals, plants and other organisms.

Scientists involved in the march said they were anxious about political and public rejection of established science such as climate change and the safety of vaccine immunizations.

“Scientists find it appalling that evidence has been crowded out by ideological assertions,” said Rush Holt, a former physicist and Democratic congressman who runs the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “It is not just about Donald Trump, but there is also no question that marchers are saying ‘when the shoe fits.”

Have you ever wondered why Modern American Liberals are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars were sunk into these so-called green projects, through all 8 years of the Obama administration.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals personal mantras, they believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal…

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do Modern American Liberals continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science his legacy an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1.  Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama and Hillary. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. Obama’s got political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Liberals continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recall, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost, and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Planet will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public from the immature, absurd, and corrupt nature of their ongoing National Temper Tantrum over the lost of the 2016 Presidential Election?

Perhaps, they can get the Goreacle to present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly at the Box Office, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama NOAA Scientist Withheld Data Showing Global Warming Slowdown Before 2015 Paris Climate Conference

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

solid-foundation-600-wlogo

Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised. — Charles Krauthammer

Foxnews.com reports that

A key Obama administration scientist brushed aside inconvenient data that showed a slowdown in global warming in compiling an alarming 2015 report that coincided with the White House participation in the Paris Climate Conference, a whistle blower is alleging.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a major 2013 report, concluded global temperatures had shown a smaller increase from 1998 to 2012 than any similar period over the past 30 to 60 years. But a blockbuster, June 2015 paper by a team of federal scientists led by Thomas Karl, published in the journal Science in June 2015 and later known as the “pausebuster” paper sought to discredit the notion of a slowdown in warming.

“Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century,” Karl, who was at the time director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, said at the time.

The report argued that evidence shows there was no “hiatus” in rising global temperatures and that they had been increasing in the 21st century just as quickly as in the last half of the 20th century.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, questioned the timing, noting the paper was published just before the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan was submitted to the Paris Climate Conference of 2015.

“In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference,” Smith said in a statement. “Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials.”

Karl denied the paper was released to boost the plan.

Karl’s neglect of the IPCC data was purposeful, according to John Bates, a recently retired scientist from the National Climactic Data Center at the NOAA. Bates came forward just days ago to charge that the 2015 study selectively used misleading and unverified data – effectively putting NOAA’s thumb on the scale.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Bates said Karl was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

For example, Karl allegedly adjusted temperature data collected by robot buoys upward to match earlier data from ocean-going ships. That was problematic, Bates said, because ships generate heat and could cause readings to vary.

“They had good data from buoys,” Bates told the Daily Mail. “And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”

Bates, who could not be reached for comment, but has published some of his allegations in a blog, claims to have documentation of his explosive charges and indicated more revelations are coming.

A NOAA spokesman, in an email to The Washington Times, said NOAA “stands behind its world-class scientists” but also that it “takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately.”

Bates is not the first to question Karl’s conclusions. A paper by Canadian climate modeler John Fyfe questioned the 2015 study. As he put it, in a 2016 article from the journal Nature Climate Change, “there is a mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what observations are showing. We can’t ignore it.”

Climate scientists have closed ranks around Karl. A study published last month in Science Advances, by Zeke Hausfather of University of California Berkeley and five others, claims to confirm Karl’s findings.

In addition, climate scientist Peter Thorne, who has worked with the NOAA, said Bates wasn’t involved in the work that he’s criticizing. Bates disputed the assertion.

While Karl, and other scientists who believe man-made climate change poses a major threat had the ear of the Obama administration, President Trump has shown signs of skepticism. It remains to be seen from which scientists he will take his cue.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal…

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do Modern American Liberals continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science his legacy an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1.  Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. Obama’s got political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Liberals continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recall, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Plant will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public from the NOAA Scandal?

Perhaps, they can get the Goreacle to present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Candidates’ Reaction to Hurricane Matthew: A Barometer for a Presidential Choice

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

thzf7p938s

Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. – President Ronald Reagan

The Washington Free Beacon reports that

Hillary Clinton said climate change was to blame for Hurricane Hermine during a campaign rally Tuesday in Tampa, Florida, warning more storms would come.

“Another threat to our country is climate change,” she said. “2015 was the hottest year on record, and the science is clear. It’s real. It’s wreaking havoc on communities across America. Last week’s hurricane was another reminder of the devastation that extreme weather can cause, and I send my thoughts and prayers to everyone affected by Hermine.”

“But this is not the last one that’s going to hit Florida, given what’s happening in the climate. Nobody knows that better than folks right here in Tampa and in the broader region,” Clinton continued. “Sea levels have been rising here about an inch per decade since the 1950s. At the rate we are going, by 2030, which is not that far away, $70 billion of coastal property in this state will be flooding at high tide. And whenever our infrastructure is threatened, so too is our homeland security.”

Hermine peaked as a Category 1, the weakest level to be considered a hurricane, and hit the “Big Bend” region of Florida on Thursday, marking the first time a hurricane had made landfall in the state in 11 years. Hermine then continued on a path out into the Atlantic Ocean and began resembling more of a nor’easter.

Clinton pledged to work with local leaders to make “smart investments” in infrastructure to combat flooding and other climate change effects.

So, why is Hillary continuing Obama’s Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science his legacy?

1.  Appeasing the Gullible -Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Hillary knows that too much money has invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and too much of American Taxpayers money has been spent needlessly on the failure that is “The Search for Alternative Energy Solutions” to back down now. The Queen of Mean has political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Hillary needs to grasp for whatever national distraction she can come up with. As her campaign continues  its descent down the proverbial porcelain receptacle, propelled by promises such as continuing to bring in Syrian Refugees by the tens of thousand into our country, imbedded with possible Islamic Terrorists from ISIS, she desperately needs a distraction. She sure can’t talk about E-mailgate, the continuing Bimbo Eruptions, or her horrendous performance as Secretary of State and “Smart Power”!

4. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder what evidence Hillary is going to present to prove that Hurricane Matthew is the fault of Americans for “mistreating” the environment?

Perhaps, she will present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Global Warming/Climate Change/The Guilt of Mankind  is not the cause of Hurricane Matthew, Mrs. Clinton.

And, you know it.

Just as your Former Boss, President Barack Hussein Obama, continues to use the murders of Americans by Muslim Terrorists to justify his continuously-failing attempt to take away guns from law-abiding Americans, now you are attempting to use this natural disaster to further the myth of Climate Change and your own (judging from your rapidly-tanking campaign) limited political career.

Your Political Party’s heinous politicization of tragedies, involving innocent Americans, continues to backfire on you Liberals, but you’re too self-righteous to figure out why.

The answer is simple:

America is not one collective hive-mind. We are a nation of individuals. And, as such, the overwhelming majority of us have been taught by our parents to value and cherish human life.

That’s why you are experiencing a blowback against your love of abortion and your politicization of tragedies.

Valuing life is not a political thing. It is a human thing…and an American Heritage.

A Heritage which hive-mind Liberals such as yourself, Senator, will never understand.

It is way above your pay grade.

And, that is why you fail.

America’s prayers are with the Americans Citizens living in Florida.

May God hold them in the hollow of His hand.

Compare and contrast what the Democratic Presidential Candidate said about the potential devastation facing American Citizens to this statement from the Republican Presidential Candidate, Donald J. Trump…

“Our thoughts and prayers go out to everyone in the path of Hurricane Matthew, namely in Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas, and we encourage everyone to listen to their governors and local emergency officials urging the evacuations of at-risk coastal communities.

These warnings are very, very serious — if your home is in the path of the hurricane and you are being advised to leave, you need to do so right now. Nothing is more important than the safety of your family.

“I would also like to offer my thanks to the law enforcement, first responders and power crews making the necessary preparations for the storm and carrying out their plans to help our communities survive and recover in the aftermath.

“I also want to extend my personal condolences to those families in Haiti who lost loved ones as this storm tore through their island. The news reports that over a hundred people are feared dead saddens us all, and the United States should offer our assistance to help our island neighbors.

“Please stay safe.”

The ludicrous nature of Clinton’s blaming a natural disaster on the perceived guilt of Mankind as taught in the “holy scriptures” of the gospel according to Al Gore notwithstanding, which candidate sounds more fit to hold the Office of President of the United States of America, boys and girls?

Just as the current occupant of the White House blames every horrendous event that befalls our nation on its citizens, Hillary follows the same “Blame Americans First” political philosophy.

Trump expressed concern for the safety of Americans and issued thanks to those who are risking their lives to keep Americans safe.

Remember this moment on Election Day 2016…and vote accordingly.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama Goes to Paris Climate Change Summit To Pledge OUR Money. Congress to Fight.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

untitled (12)

The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, is about to spend a boatload of American Taxpayers’ money on a psuedo-science that the majority of Americans do not believe is an important issue at all.

The New York Times reports the following

WASHINGTON — At a joint news conference here Tuesday with President François Hollande of France, President Obama veered from his focus on the terrorist attacks in Paris to bring up the huge international gathering beginning in the French capital on Monday to hammer out a global response to climate change.

“What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children,” Mr. Obama said of the climate conference.

The segue brought mockery, even castigation, from the political right, but it was a reminder of the importance Mr. Obama places on climate change in shaping his legacy. During his 2012 re-election campaign, he barely mentioned global warming, but the issue has become a hallmark of his second term.

And on Sunday night he arrives in Paris, hoping to make climate policy the signature environmental achievement of his, and perhaps any, presidency.

“He comes to Paris with a moral authority that no other president has had on the issue of climate change,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University who noted that Mr. Obama’s domestic climate efforts already stand alone in American history. “No other president has had a climate change policy. It makes him unique.”

In Paris, Mr. Obama will join more than 120 world leaders to kick off two weeks of negotiations aimed at forging a new climate change accord that would, for the first time, commit almost every country on Earth to lowering its greenhouse gas pollution. All year, Mr. Obama’s negotiators have worked behind the scenes to fashion a Paris deal.

Crucial to Mr. Obama’s leverage has been the release of his domestic climate change regulations, which he then pushed other countries to emulate. So far, at least 170 countries have put forth emission reduction plans.

But even as Mr. Obama presses for a deal in Paris, it faces steep obstacles, not least the legal and legislative assault on his own regulations at home. During the course of the Paris talks, Republicans in Congress are planning a series of votes to fight Mr. Obama’s climate agenda. More than half the states are suing the administration on the legality of his climate plan. And all the Republican presidential candidates have said that they would undo the regulations if elected.

On Nov. 19, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, chairman of the environment committee and the Senate’s most vocal skeptic on climate change science, and Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming sent a letter to Mr. Obama, signed by 35 other senators, promising to block the funding for any climate deal unless the Paris pact is sent to Congress for ratification. A vote on the deal would fail in the Republican-controlled Congress.

“Our constituents are worried that the pledges you are committing the United States to will strengthen foreign economies at the expense of American workers,” the senators wrote. “They are also skeptical about sending billions of their hard-earned dollars to government officials from developing nations.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Obama is pushing forward. He unveiled the rules on curbing heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions with a tight timeline, ensuring that they would be finalized before he leaves office. He has raised the issue of climate change in dozens of speeches and with every recent visiting foreign leader. In Washington, a team of environmental lawyers is preparing to defend the rules in court, while at the State Department, climate envoys are in constant contact with their counterparts around the world

If his domestic regulations and a Paris accord withstand efforts to gut them, “climate change will become the heart and soul of his presidency,” Mr. Brinkley said.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal…

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why is Obama on this Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science his legacy?

1.  Appeasing the Gullible -Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. Obama’s got political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Obama needs to grasp for whatever national distraction he can come up with bringing in Syrian Refugees by the tens of thousand into our country, imbedded with possible Islamic Terrorists from ISIS, he desperately needs a distraction. The Planned Parenthood Attack in Colorado by a nut job, didn’t provide near enough cover.

4. Well, he sure can’t make his failed Foreign Policy his legacy.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder what argument Obama is going to present to these World Leaders that he is meeting with? 

Perhaps, he will present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ

Why Obama is Still Wasting OUR Money on “the Fight Against Climate Change (Global Warming)”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

climate changeHave you ever wondered why President Barack Hussein Obama is still so preoccupied with Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

This faux science, invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, has become an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars have been sunk into these so-called green projects, since the advent of the Obama administration.

Now, word comes that Obama is going to meet with climatologists, in an effort to fight “Climate Change”.

Obama doesn’t even have a decent jump shot. How can he control the Earth’s Weather?

Have you ever wondered why Obama has been so gung-ho about Global Warming/Climate Change in the first place?

Well, we can trace Obama’s  concern back to his days in Chicago, as I wrote about in the blog, “Psst. Bud. You Want to Buy Some Air?”, posted on 4/29/10:

It all began with the Joyce Foundation.  This foundation started as the financial back-up plan of a widow whose family had made millions in the lumber industry.

After her death, it was run by philanthropic people who increasingly dedicated their giving to Liberal causes, including gun control, environmentalism and school changes.  It has grown over the years until it is now bigger than the TIDES Foundation and actually funds it.

The Joyce Foundation in 2000 and 2001 provided the capitol outlay to start the Chicago Climate Exchange. It started trading in 2003, and what it trades is, believe it or not, air.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is proud to let everyone know that it is “North America’s only cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.” Barack Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002 . What a coincidence, that, as president, pushing cap-and-trade is one of his highest priorities, huh?

Currently, CCX members are legally bound together by a  voluntaryagreement to regulate greenhouse gases.

The CCX provides the vehicle by which to trade the very pollution permits and carbon offsets that would be  imposed by government mandate through the administration’s cap-and-trade proposals .

Climate trading could be a $10 trillion dollar market if cap-and-trade measures like Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer are signed into law.  These measures will make energy prices go through the roof, even as companies buy and sell permits for permission to emit those six “greenhouse” gases (like paying for forgiveness of your sins).

Founders of the CCX include former Vice-President of the United States Al Gore.  Gore is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets of no value whatsoever.  These offsets allow rich polluters to continue to pollute with a clear conscience (go and sin no more, wink, wink).  Other founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs.

In 2006, CCX received a big boost when another investor bought a 10% stake on the prospect of untold riches. That investor was (ta daaah) Goldman Sachs, currently in the spotlight for selling financial instruments it knew never had the chance of a snowball in July of succeeding.

The actual mechanism that enabled trading on the exchange was bought and patented by none other than Franklin Raines, who was CEO of Fannie Mae at the time.

Raines struck it rich to the tune of some $90 million by buying and bundling bad mortgages that led to the horrible economy that we are still dealing with.  Why would a mortgage guy be interested in Climate Change?  Simple.   Cap-and-trade will make housing costs go up, too.

Goldman and Sachs, who gave around $1,000,000 to Obama’s Presidential Campaign, is under investigation by the SEC and in the midst of an inquisition by the U.S. Senate, as I alluded to previously.  Why are they putting up with this abuse when the Democrats themselves are the ones who have benefited the most from the political benevolence  of Wall Street in the past?

Answer:  money and power.  Goldman Sachs is going along with this dog and pony show because of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.  If Cap and Trade is passed, they and the rest of the investors that comprise the Chicago Climate Exchange are going to be swimming in a moat of money.

President Barack Hussein Obama was also one of those Board Members of the Joyce Foundation, who helped to found the CCX to the tune of $1,100,000.

Back on 6/29/09, canadafreepress.com reported that

If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers.

What a flap when it was discovered that the senator from Chicago had nursed on Saul Alinsky’s milk, had his political career launched at a coffee party held by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and sat for 20 years, uncomplaining in front of the “God-dam-America pulpit of resentment-challenged Jeremiah Wright.

Folk were naturally outraged that the empty suit who would go on to become TOTUS was spawned from such anti-American activism.

But the media should have been hollering, “Stop Thief!” instead.

The same Chicago Climate Exchange promoting public rip-off was funded by Obama before he was POTUS.

Even as man-made global warming is being exposed as a money-generating hoax, Obama is working feverishly to push the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme through Congress.

Fortunately for our nation, Obama’s Cap and Trade Bill failed to leave the Senate in July of 2010, leading the Chicago Climate Exchange closed up shop in November of 2010.

So, why is Obama still on this Quixotic Crusade?

1.  Appeasing the Gullible -Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. Obama’s got political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – With Obama and his minions about to get a Proctological Exam by the Congressional Select Committee on Benghazi, Obama needs to grasp for whatever national distraction he can come up with.

So, there you go. I wonder what argument Obama is going to present to those climatologists he is meeting with? 

Perhaps, he will present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Charitable Giving in America: Liberals Talk the Talk. Christian Conservatives Walk the Walk.

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

American Freedom

This time of year, Americans’ thoughts and hearts turn toward helping those who are less fortunate.

We are reminded of the plight of others every time we pass by a volunteer at a Salvation Army Kettle,

And, that got me to thinking, Who actual gives more to charity, the Vocal Minority, America’s Liberals…or the Silent Majority, Christiam American Conservatives?

I have noticed over the years, that when a Christian American Conservative, such a myself, writes a Blog concerning Christianity in America, Liberals jump up on their hind legs and start complaining that Conservatives ARE the problem with Christianity in America, and, that Christian Conservatives are the least charitable, least caring of Americans.

A pretty silly statement, when you think about it. One that is so blatantly false, it’s laughable.

Realclearpolitics.com posted the following article by George Wills on March 27, 2008,  featuring information gathered by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, who published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism”…

— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

— Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

— Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

— Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

— In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

— People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and “the values that lie beneath” liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks’ book says, “the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have ‘no religion’ has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s.” America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one — secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks’ book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin — it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide — is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America’s 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks’ data about disparities between liberals’ and conservatives’ charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America’s richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon — a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.” Brooks, however, warns: “If support for a policy that does not exist … substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others.”

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore’s charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore “gave at the office.” By using public office to give other peoples’ money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

Last Friday, The Christian Post published the following article about a very familiar Christian American Conservative, a man who is carrying on his father’s legacy of touching people all over the world in the name of Jesus Christ and who, coincidentally, has been banned by President Obama and His Administration from speaking to our Armed Forces at Christmas.

Franklin Graham, president of nonprofit Samaritan’s Purse, joined project organizers, local families and survivors of Hurricane Sandy at one of New York City’s major airports this week to personally send off more than 60,000 gifts to some of Typhoon Haiyan’s most vulnerable victims in the Philippines.

“Do you know what these gifts are going to mean to these kids? It means that somebody loves them, it means they haven’t been forgotten. It will mean everything in the world. It will give these little kids hope,” Graham told more than 300 attendees at Thursday’s event.

The evangelist and son of the Rev. Billy Graham was flanked by young singers of the Christian Heritage Academy and a loaded Boeing 747 over his shoulder as he thanked participants during the send-off ceremony at Hangar 19 at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK).

“It’s about letting the children of the world to know that God loves them and God hasn’t forgotten them,” Graham added in his interview with The Christian Post. His Samaritan’s Purse international relief organization has been delivering emergency aid to the Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan forced more than 3.9 million residents to flee their homes. The powerful Nov. 8 typhoon has killed at least 6,000 people and injured more than 27,000 others.

The organization’s annual Operation Christmas Child outreach will be delivering shoe boxes stuffed with goodies and essentials to thousands of Filipino children to let them know that Christians on the other side of the world are praying for them and contributing to their needs.

The other day, at Mandela’s Funeral, I noticed that, when former President George W. Bush got up to speak, Mandela’s faithful booed, and gave him a poor reception, after greeting President Obama as “a true son of Africa”. Very curious. 

Per CNN, in the four years following the unprecedented creation in 2004 of the funding mechanism known as PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), Bush sent some $19 billion to Africa and other hard-hit parts of the world.

On the other hand,last year,the Obama Administration unveiled a budget that reduces AIDS funding globally by roughly $214 million, the first time an American president has reduced the U.S. commitment to fighting the epidemic since it broke out in the 1980s during the Reagan administration.

Illuminating, isn’t it?

Until He Comes,

KJ