Tag: Climate Change

Pelosi Says That Trump Withdrawing From Paris Accords “Dishonors God”. Wait. I Thought Man Controlled the “Climate”?

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

PelosiUpset

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

Some people are so stupid, you wonder how they remember to breathe.

CNSNews.com reported yesterday that

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said at a press briefing today that withdrawing the United States from the Paris Accord on climate change dishonors God. 
“The Bible tells us that to minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship,” Pelosi said. “To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us and that is just what we are doing by walking away from this accord.”

Here is an excerpt from Pelosi’s briefing:

And we have a moral responsibility in addition to our national security, our economy and the good health of our children. We have a moral responsibility.     We must leave future generations with a healthy, sustainable planet. Faith leaders—starting with His Holiness, Pope Francis—to the Evangelical community have urged as to be responsible stewards of the beauty of God’s creation. They believe, as do I, that this planet is God’s creation and we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of it. When we worked with the Evangelical community to put together our climate legislation ten years ago, nine years ago–we worked on it for awhile–they had their literature which said that we had a moral responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, and, in doing so, we must pay special attention to the needs of the poor. They saw it as an environmental justice issue as well, the Evangelical community.
When the pope went to the White House he talked about the dangers of air pollution, when he was here. And just last week, the pope met with President Trump and gave him a copy of his encyclical, Laudate Si, which made the case for strong, urgent action to halt the climate crisis. The pope wrote: ‘The climate is a common good belonging to all and meant for all.’
The Bible tells us that to minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us and that is just what we are doing by walking away from this accord.

I just love it when Liberal Politicians like San Fran Nan attempt to speak for God.

Especially her.

In April of 2009, outspoken Abortion Rights Champion Pelosi traveled to Vatican City to meet with “Il Papa”.  Things did not go well for her. Here in Dixie, we would describe it as a “Come to Jesus” Meeting. (courtesy of catholicleague.org)

At their meeting, Pope Benedict XVI took the occasion “to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of development.”

What occasioned such a rebuke was not only Pelosi’s total support of abortion rights, including the now outlawed practice of partial-birth abortion, but her incredible statement last fall on “Meet the Press.” She said that the Catholic Church had not consistently opposed abortion over time. Hence, the pointed response by the pope.

What was perhaps even more significant, was the fact that Pelosi was denied her big prize: she desperately wanted a picture of her and the pope smiling together. But there was no photo-op—the Vatican, uncharacteristically, had no photographer present. Thus, there was no way for Pelosi to exploit her meeting.

And, then there was the 2012 Democratic National Convention…

Delegates and members of the Democratic party booed after former Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH) discussed God and moved to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles, had to ask for the Yea and Nay vote several times before declaring the motion passed.

C-SPAN cameras captured the dissatisfaction among members after the motion passed.

More information from the Associated Press:
Democrats have changed their convention platform to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

The move came after criticism from Republicans.

Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected.

He called for a vote three times before ruling.

The party reinstated language from the 2008 platform that said “we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

The platform also now includes what advisers said was Obama’s personal views on Jerusalem.

Now that we’ve established that American Liberals like Nancy Pelosi, only refer to the Diety of 75% of Americans when it is politically expedient to do so…

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.

Including the sovereignty of the United States of America.

So, when President Trump told those countries who were looking forward to spending American Taxpayers’ money with no penalties or responsibility on their end, that the Gravy Train was pulling out of the station without them, and Obama’s quest for an enduring legacy was not as important as the American Jobs which would have been lost, Liberals had something else to throw a hissy fit about.

why do Modern American Liberals and bought-off Liberal Politicians continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science 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. They have 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.

For Pelosi to attempt to argue that the God of Abraham is on her side is hypocritical at best and downright psychotic at worst.

Molech, yes. The God of Abraham, no.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they soon find Pelosi huddled in a corner, wearing her bloomers on top of her head, swearing that the ice is chasing her like it did people in that horrible movie starring Dennis Quaid, “The Day After Tomorrow”, which bombed spectacularly at the Box Office.

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

Dim…err…Dem. Senator From California Grills Future CIA Director Pompeo as to Whether He Believes in “Climate Change”. Really? Why?

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

kerry-climate-change-ignores-isis

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 have been sunk into these so-called green projects, since the advent of 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, including the security of our Sovereign Nation.

CNSNews.com reports that

CIA director nominee Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) said Thursday that he would rather not wade into the climate change debate during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

“I frankly as a director of CIA would prefer today not to get into the details of climate debate and science. It seems my role is gonna be so different and unique from that. It is gonna be to work alongside warriors keeping Americans safe, and so I stand by the things that I’

Sen. Kamal Harris (D-Calif.) asked Pompeo, “CIA Director Brennan, who spent a 25-year career at the CIA as an analyst, a senior manager, and station chief in the field, has said that when ‘CIA analysts look for deeper causes of rising instability in the world, one of the causes those CIA analysts see is the impact of climate change.’ Do you have any reason to doubt the assessment of these CIA analysts?”

“Senator, I haven’t had a chance to read those materials with respect to climate change. I do know the agency’s role there,” said Pompeo.

“Its role is to collect foreign intelligence, to understand threats to the world. That would certainly include threats from poor governance, regional instability, threats from all sources and deliver that information to policymakers, and to the extent the changes in climactic activity are part of that foreign intelligence collection task, we will deliver that information to you all and to the president,” he added.

Harris asked a follow-up question about whether Pompeo doubted NASA’s findings on the issue of climate change.

“In the past, you have questioned the scientific consensus on climate change. Nevertheless, according to NASA, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively published climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities,” she said.

“In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. Do you have any reason to doubt NASA’s findings?” Harris asked.

“Senator, I’ve actually spoken to this in my political life some. My commentary most all has been directed to ensuring that the policies that America has put in place actually achieve the objective of ensuring that we didn’t have catastrophic harm that resulted from change in climate,” Pompeo said. “I continue to hold that view.
 
“I frankly as a director of CIA would prefer today not to get into the details of climate debate and science. It seems my role is gonna be so different and unique from that. It is gonna be to work alongside warriors keeping Americans safe, and so I stand by the things that I’ve said previously with respect to that issue,” he said.

“So I’m not clear. Do you believe that NASA’s findings are debatable?” Harris asked.

“Senator, actually I haven’t spent enough time to tell you that I’ve looked at NASA’s findings, and just, I can’t give you any judgment about that today,” Pompeo replied.

“Can you guarantee me that you will and we’ll have a follow-up conversation on this?” Harris asked.

“I’m happy to continue to talk about it. Yes, ma’am, of course,” Pompeo responded.

Leonard Weinstein, ScD, published an article on 4/25/2009 titled Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem. 

Here are some excerpts:

A hypothesis has been proposed that human activity over about the last 150 years has caused a significant rise in Earth’s average temperature.

…In order to support a hypothesis, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the hypothesis, and the predictions then need to either happen or be falsified. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a hypothesis, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the hypothesis is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions are absolute in nature. Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light by the Sun is such a case. It either would or would not bend, and this was considered a critical test of the validity of his hypothesis of general relativity. It did bend the predicted amount, and helped raise the concept to the status of theory.

Many predictions however are less easily supported. For example, weather forecasting often does a good job in the very short term but over increasing time does a poor job. This is due to the complexity of the numerous nonlinear components. This complexity has been described in chaos theory by what is called the butterfly effect. Any effect that depends on numerous factors, some of which are nonlinear in effect, is nearly impossible to use to make long-range predictions.

However, for some reason, the present predictions of “Climate Change” are considered by the AGW supporters to be more reliable than even short-term weather forecasting. While some overall trends can be reasonably made based on looking at past historical trends, and some computational models can suggest some trends due to specific forcing factors, like any respectable hypothesis, specific predictions need to be made, and then shown to happen, before the AGW models can have any claim to being reasonably valid.

The AGW computational models do make several specific predictions. Since the time scale for checking the result of the predictions is small, and since local weather can vary enough on the short time scale to confuse the longer time scale prediction, allowances for these shorter lasting events have to be made when examining data that is supposed to be supporting the predictions. Nevertheless, if the actual data results do not significantly support the stated predictions, the AGW hypothesis must be reconsidered or even rejected as it stands.

…The final question is what prediction has the AGW hypothesis made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the hypothesis. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much falsifying evidence for the AGW hypothesis as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem. There is also very likely some contribution to the present temperature variations from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it is almost certainly a small effect and not a driver of future climate.

Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic AGW hypothesis fails.

So, why are Congressional Democrats still “ate up with the Dumb A@@” (a colorful Southern expression)and still tilting at windmills, fighting their Quixotic Crusade?

Well…Here are some possible reasons…

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. These Democratic Congresscritters have political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – With Obama and his minions about to be kicked out of the Halls of Power, with possible Federal Investigations to follow, the Congressional Democrats are grasping for whatever national distraction they can come up with.

What would make Senator Harris think that the Director of the CIA has anything to do with “Climate Change” in the performance of his job duties?

Perhaps, she was thinking about “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

 

WV Coal Miners Exact Their Revenge on Clinton. Democrats Shocked That Their Con Job Didn’t Work.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

th120T42JDAlmost Heaven, West Virginia…

Blue Ridge Mountains, Shenandoah River.

Hil got beat there,

Beat there like a drum.

The Democrats are puzzled,

But I’m sure having fun.

USA Today reports that

While Clinton’s loss will probably matter little in her battle with Sanders given her large overall delegate lead, it is a powerful reminder of her challenges in a general election match-up with Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee.
Clinton’s performance in West Virginia — a state she won by a wide margin in the 2008 primaries — could point to problems with a critical voting bloc that supported her husband during the more economically prosperous 1990s.

These same voters now feel left behind as manufacturing jobs have disappeared and the coal industry has declined amid a shift to cleaner sources of energy.  Trump is vowing to bring coal and manufacturing jobs back to depressed pockets of Appalachia by slapping tariffs on China and reworking trade deals.

 Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at a campaign rally in Stockton, Calif., on May 10, 2016.

“West Virginia is a working-class state, and like many other states in this country, including Oregon, working people are hurting,” he said. “And what the people of West Virginia said tonight, and I believe the people of Oregon and Kentucky will say next week, is that we need an economy that works for all of us, not just the one percent.”

Oregon and Kentucky each hold Democratic primaries next Tuesday. Given the Democratic Party’s proportional allocation system, Sanders stood to only modestly boost his delegate total with his West Virginia win.

While Clinton’s loss will probably matter little in her battle with Sanders given her large overall delegate lead, it is a powerful reminder of her challenges in a general election match-up with Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee.

Clinton’s performance in West Virginia — a state she won by a wide margin in the 2008 primaries — could point to problems with a critical voting bloc that supported her husband during the more economically prosperous 1990s.

These same voters now feel left behind as manufacturing jobs have disappeared and the coal industry has declined amid a shift to cleaner sources of energy.  Trump is vowing to bring coal and manufacturing jobs back to depressed pockets of Appalachia by slapping tariffs on China and reworking trade deals.

Alternatively, Clinton’s vision is to move these communities to a new generation of jobs, acknowledging a coal industry renaissance is not in the cards.

In a speech at a brewery in southeastern Ohio last week, Clinton said coal is still a part of the nation’s energy supply, but even big coal-consuming nations like China are starting to burn less. “No matter what some politicians tell you, these trends are here to stay,” she said in Athens, Ohio.

It’s not a message they seem to want to hear. Trump is ahead of Clinton by 27 points in West Virginia, according to a recent Public Policy Polling survey.

His performance in West Virginia with white, working-class voters also explains why he’s picking up steam in more critical Midwestern swing states that Clinton has to carry in November.

Democrats have assumed Clinton would beat Trump in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, which voted twice for Barack Obama and are populated by the blue-collar, union households that have been the Democratic Party’s lifeblood for generations.

Yet a new Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll shows Clinton and Trump in a dead heat in two of them: Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Since Hillary was a part of a Presidential Administration, who placed an unproven “science” above American Jobs, it was only fitting that West Vergina Democrat Voters, those “Blue-collar” folks that the Democrats erroneously claim that they love, did their dead-level best to make sure that she will NOT be hired, come this November.

Speaking of her Former Boss, President Barack Hussein Obama, have you ever wondered why he continues to try to force Americans to accept “forms of Alternative Energy”, when they have all failed economically, at the expense of American Jobs?

And, why does he continue to push the disproven pseudo-science of “Global Warming…errr…Climate Change”?

The Chicago Climate Exchange was North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.

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 traded was, believe it or not, air.

Barack Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002 . What a coincidence, that, as president, pushing cap-and-trade was one of his highest priorities, huh?

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 to close up shop in November of 2010.

However, as I stated earlier, to this very day, Obama is still relentlessly pursuing “Climate Change”, which the majority of Americans, in poll after poll, have stated is not a National Priority.

And, a group of Investors, among whose number are friends and benefactors of Obama, have formed another group, for the stated purpose of “Duty and Humanity”, in order to, as the Chicago Climate Exchange was going to, “assist in the fight against Climate Change”.

The Business Insider reported a short while back, that

Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and a roster of other high-profile tech figures are launching a new organisation designed to invest in renewable energy technologies. 

It is called the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, and says its aim is to create “a network of private capital committed to building a structure that will allow informed decisions to help accelerate the change to the advanced energy future our planet needs.”

Announced ahead of a major UN climate change conference in Paris this week, the coalition’s members say that enough isn’t being done from established organisations to drive forward research and investment into clean energy.

Writing on Facebook late Sunday night, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that “solving the clean energy problem is an essential part of building a better world … yet progress towards a sustainable energy system is too slow, and the current system doesn’t encourage the kind of innovation that will get us there faster.”

Likewise, the Coalition’s website says that “the existing system of basic research, clean energy investment, regulatory frameworks, and subsidies fails to sufficiently mobilize investment in truly transformative energy solutions for the future. We can’t wait for the system to change through normal cycles.”

In short: Established investors are moving much too slowly towards the renewable energy, and it’s too important to wait for that to sort itself out naturally.

Among the other “Investors” in this new “coalition” were the Puppetmaster himself, George Soros and fellow “Billionaire Philanthropist” Tom Steyer.

Which is interesting, because Breitbart.com’s Steve Milloy reported back on August 17th that

U.S. Securities and Exchange Act filings indicate that Soros has purchased an initial 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and 553,200 shares of Arch Coal, the two largest publicly traded U.S. coal companies. As pointed out last week, both companies have been driven perilously close to bankruptcy by the combination of President Obama’s “war on coal” and inexpensive natural gas brought on by the hydrofracturing revolution.

Under the hypothesis that not even socialists would leave trillions of dollars worth of a perfectly safe and clean energy source in the ground for the sake of the imaginary “climate crisis,” I posited that once the existing coal industry ownership was wiped out by President Obama’s regulatory onslaught, a new politically correct ownership would rehabilitate the fuel by contributing to Democrats.

Enter George Soros, a hardball investor and philanthropist to myriad left-wing causes, including the activist and “clean energy” rent-seeking movements that have helped take down the coal industry. In 2009, for example, Soros announced he would spend $1 billion in “clean energy” technology and create a San Francisco-based advocacy organization called the Climate Policy Initiative.

Less than a year ago the Soros’ Climate Policy Initiative issued a major report concluding that the world could save $1.8 trillion over the next two decades by transitioning away from coal. The report referred to coal reserves as “stranded assets” that were losing value as they were no longer needed.

Meanwhile, both Professional and Self-Proclaimed Political Pundits can not understand why Hillary Clinton is tanking so bady, whilt the “Rank Outsider”, Donald J. Trump’s Popularity continues to rise.

Y’know, it’s hard to run a Political Carnival Game on us “suckers”, once we have figured out what your “left hand” is doing.

In the case of the Democrats and their Presumptive Presidential Nominee, Hillary Clinton, the West Virginia Coal Miners sent those “Carnival Barkers” a message, load and clear:

IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

…AND YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT!

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

New Years Day 2016: Once Again, “A Time For Choosing”

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

th0HP8WP4PAs I sat down this morning to write something to summarize 2015, while looking forward to 2016, I thought about the Top News Stories of this past year:

The War on ISIS

The Supreme Court Ruling on “Gay Marriage”

The Paris Islamic Terrorist Attack

The San Bernadino, California Islamic Terrorist Attack

The Charleston Shooting and the Liberals’ Use of it to Censor the Confederate Battle Flag and Remove Historical Statues

“Black Lives Matter” and the Mass Riots Across America

The Hoax Known as “Climate Change”

Bowe Bergdahl

“Caitlyn” Jenner

And, last, but certainly not least, the 2016 Presidential Election 

And I wondered how the “Shining City on a Hill”, which the greatest American President in my generation, Ronald Wilson Reagan, so wonderfully described, has fallen so far, into a morass of relative morality and situational ethics.

In 1964, in his famous stump speech, “A Time for Choosing”, The Great Communicator said,

It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, “We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government.”

This idea — that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power — is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream–the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”

The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.

So, is our present state of unrest and strife which we are experiencing in America, simply a matter of choice?

I believe that it is…one of individual freedom or subjugation to “princes and principalities”.

Here is a radio message which the late, great American News Commentator Paul Harvey delivered on April 3, 1965:

If I were the devil, I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree—Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first—I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to pray after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’ 

And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors on how to lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. 

If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches that war that themselves, and nations that war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flame. If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, and neglect to discipline emotions—just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography—soon I could evict God from the courthouse, and then the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress. And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.If I were the devil I’d take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. What do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would question against extremes and hard work, and Patriotism, and moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be. And thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were to devil I’d keep on doing on what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey, good day.

So, are we doomed as a nation to continue to slide down this slippery slope we are traveling on? In the conclusion of “A Time for Choosing”, Ronald Reagan reminded us that the choice was ours to make…

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that “the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits–not animals.” And he said, “There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

As a Christian American Conservative, I believe that there is a divine spark within each one of us.

It is up to us , whether we choose to listen to that still, small voice, as He guides us through our choices we make everyday.

I also believe that this nation was forged by Christian Men, who were led by their Creator to seek the FREEDOM to worship him as they chose

In 2016, we have an opportunity to begin the journey back to reclaim the vision of our Forefathers.

It is, once again, “A Time For Choosing”.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The San Bernadino Massacre: Average Americans Proven Right About It, All Along.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Say-It-NRD-600As more information is revealed about the motives behind the attack in San Bernadino, California, it appears that the instincts of average Americans, concerning the purpose of the attack were right all along.

Foxnews.com reports that

Three days after a heavily armed Muslim couple who lived in a home investigators described as “an IED factory” burst into a Southern California office building and gunned down 14 people, the FBI finally — and awkwardly — acknowledged Friday that it is treating the case as an act of terrorism.

In an unusual and brief address to reporters at which Attorney General Loretta Lynch appeared and questions were not taken on camera, FBI Director James Comey affirmed the bureau’s LA office’s characterization earlier in the day.

“This is now a federal terrorism investigation,” Comey said, alluding to evidence collected from electronic devices and reports that Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik may have been sympathetic to radical terrorist groups prior to the attack. After his comments, Comey asked pool reporters if they had any questions, but the pre-taped event, which was later distributed to media outlets, was cut off abruptly and no questions were permitted.

The director, a Republican appointed in 2013 and a former deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush,” did not allude to the Muslim faith of suspects Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. But in pronouncing it a case of terrorism, he seemed to be stating the obvious while at the same time going farther than President Obama has been willing to go and possibly hinting at some behind-the-scenes dissent. Sources told Fox News Lynch was there to “ensure [Comey] didn’t take it too far” in his characterization of the attacks.

On Thursday, in the face of mounting evidence of a terror motive, President Obama refused to rule out an office dispute as the possible motive for the attack. The equivocation stoked outrage among many of Obama’s critics, who noted his insistence on labelling as “workplace violence” the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, in which a Muslim Army major killed 13 people and injured another 30 while shouting “Allahu Akbar” and his ongoing refusal to characterize acts of terror as driven by radical interpretations of Islam.

“If you can’t come to a conclusion at this point that this was an act of terror, you should find something else to do for a living than being in law enforcement. I mean, you’re a moron,” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who led the city during the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath, thundered hours later on Fox News.

Then, on Friday, hours before the FBI announcement, Fox New confirmed that Malik had pledged her allegiance to ISIS as the morning attack began. She and her husband were killed hours later in a shootout with police just two miles away. Those developments confirmed the suspicions of many, and left it obvious that Malik, at least, was driven by radical Islam.

“We are investigating it as an act of terrorism, for good reason,” David Bowdich, the assistant FBI director in charge of the Los Angeles office, told reporters in an afternoon news conference before his boss spoke.

Bowdich, who said neither of the two were on law enforcement’s radar prior to the attack, cited several factors for the focus on terrorism, including “extensive planning” that went into the attack. The pair attempted to cover up their digital trail, damaging hard drives and other electronic devices, Bowdich said. Investigators did find two cell phones recovered from trash cans near the couple’s Redlands home, and recovered evidence of communications with others who are now being investigated.

“They tried to wipe out their digital fingerprints,” he said, adding that digital communications will likely provide further substantiation of the motive, but “it’s not a three-day process.”

The post by Malik, in which she pledged allegiance to ISIS leader and self-proclaimed “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was confirmed by Facebook official. They said she posted the pledge just before she and Farook stormed a San Bernardino party for his co-workers before escaping. The couple died hours later in a shootout with police, and in the aftermath the 29-year-old Pakistani woman has remained largely a name without a face. No confirmed pictures of her have surfaced, and few details have emerged. The aura of mystery surrounding Malik has given rise to suspicions she may have been the radicalizing force who turned Farook from an aloof county restaurant inspector into her cohort in carnage, an Islamist fanatic capable of murdering co-workers who had embraced him for years.

“Usually it’s ISIS supporters trying to radicalize young girls online as they try to find new wives, but this may be the first case I know of where the opposite happened,” said Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst for Clarion Project, which tracks international terrorism.

Mauro noted that Farook’s older brother, who shares his name, served in the U.S. Navy, which would seem to indicate that Farook’s radical leanings did not come from within his own family.

“It is possible that she radicalized him or that suspected terrorists inside America he was communicating with are responsible for the radicalization, which led him to be attracted to a more hardline Salafi girl,” Mauro said.

What is known is that Malik met Farook online and that the two became engaged after Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia in September 2013. Malik applied for a K-1 visa at the American embassy in Islamabad in May, 2014 and two months later Farook again traveled to Saudi Arabia, met her there and brought her to the U.S. on a K-1 visa, a 90-day visa given to fiancés planning to marry Americans.

“Tashfeen remains the biggest mystery,” said a leader of the area’s Pakistani-American Muslim community. “She’s the one no one knows anything about and has little to no presence on the Internet or having interacted with others in the Muslim community.”

They were married on Aug. 16, 2014, in nearby Riverside County, Calif. according to their marriage license. The marriage and passage of criminal and national security background checks using FBI and Department of Homeland Security databases resulted in a conditional green card for Malik in July 2015, two months after she gave birth to their baby daughter.

Malik and Farook, an American citizen born in Chicago and raised in Southern California by parents of Pakistani descent, lived with their daughter and his mother, Rafia Farook, in a Redlands, Calif., apartment described by one investigator as an “IED factory” and ammo arsenal.

The last several days have been absolutely maddening, from this Christian American Conservative’s view of all that transpired.

The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, the Main Stream Media, Internet “Tough Guys”, and self-proclaimed pundits, have all joined together in a concerted effort to try to convince average Americans that we did not really witness what we actually saw with our own eyes.

Obama, even though it is a certainty that he had much more information on this attack than we shall ever be privy to, was ambivalent at best, when he spoke to the America Public about the massacre, refusing to identify it for what it has actually turned out to be.

Can’t you just see the late Sam Kinison up in Obama’s face, telling him to

SAY IT!!! SAY IT!!! ?

Heck, one ignorant little CNN Anchor even tried to blame the massacre on “Post-Partum Depression”.

As, I have written, the President of our country believes that the answer is to enact new Gun Law by Executive Order, because, as we all know, Radical Islamists revere the laws of the United States of America, above their own Political Ideology, which masquerades as a religion.

For whatever reason, the Obama Administration has been less than truthful with the American Public. The San Bernadino Massacre is just the latest example.

Whether it’s the influence of Obama’s years in Indonesia, his 20 years sitting under a Former American Black Muslim in the person of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or the influence of Valerie Jarrett, and the rest of the Muslims in his Administration, this willful denial of the existence of Radical Islam has led to a situation which finds our nation facing unparalleled danger, from enemies foreign and domestic.

Now is not the time for Political Correctness, denial, and deflection.

It is time to face our enemies and stand up to them as Americans always have.

And, not through stupid Climate Change Seminars, either.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama Apologizes For America Again, Ushers in the “Breakthrough Energy Coalition”. Shades of the Chicago Climate Exchange?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

GW-Summit-600-LIWell, Petulant President Pantywaist has apologized to other countries  on behalf of America…again.

And…just like every time before…no level-headed American asked him to.

The Times of India reports that

President Barack Obama told world leaders who gathered northeast of Paris on Monday for a climate conference that the United States is at least partly to blame for the life-threatening damage that environmental change has wrought, and he urged world leaders to join him in fixing the problem.

“I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter,” Obama said, “to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.”

In a speech interrupted by repeated beeps warning that he had exceeded his time limit, Obama said in Le Bourget that the climate conference represented an important turning point in world history because the leaders attending the meeting now recognize the urgency of the problem.

“No nation — large or small, wealthy or poor — is immune,” he said.

The greatest threat to reaching a binding climate accord may be a loose coalition of developing nations, led by India, who argue that they should not be asked to limit their economic growth as a way of fixing a problem that was largely created by the others, and Obama conceded that point.

“We know the truth that many nations have contributed little to climate change but will be the first to feel its most destructive effects,” he said.

He promised money to help the poorest nations transition to economies that depend less on burning fossil fuels, but he said a delay was not acceptable.

“For I believe, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that there is such a thing as being too late,” Obama said. “And when it comes to climate change, that hour is almost upon us.”

Obama also repeated an argument, lampooned by some Republicans, that the climate conference was a fitting response to the terrorist attacks that cost the lives of 130 people in and around Paris on Nov. 13.

“What greater rejection of those who would tear down our world than marshaling our best efforts to save it,” he said.

About 150 world leaders were expected to gather at the opening of the talks in a heavily guarded convention center as a show of encouragement and support for efforts to forge a historic agreement to jointly curb greenhouse-gas emissions, in an effort to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

Obama has staked much of his legacy on ensuring success here, spending much of the past year courting the leaders of China, India and other major emitters in hopes they would finally agree to slow their rapidly rising use of coal and other carbon-intensive fuels.

President Francois Hollande of France greeted Obama just eight hours after the two paid a surprise late-night visit to the Bataclan, the concert hall where dozens of people were killed on Nov. 13, as part of a coordinated series of attacks in and around Paris.

At the brief visit last night, Obama, Hollande and Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris, each laid a white rose before standing in silence in front of the building for several minutes.

Shortly after his arrival, Obama met with President Xi Jinping of China in a meeting of the leaders of the world’s two largest carbon-polluting countries.

Citing climate change as “a huge challenge,” Xi said it was “very important for China and the United States to be firmly committed to the right direction of building a new model of major country relations,” including by “partnering with each other to help the climate conference deliver its expected targets.”

The Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a group of business and philanthropy leaders led by the Microsoft founder Bill Gates who have a combined total of $350 billion in private wealth, have pledged to invest in moving clean-energy technologies from laboratories to the marketplace.

About this “Breakthrough Energy Coalition”…

The Business Insider reports that

Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and a roster of other high-profile tech figures are launching a new organisation designed to invest in renewable energy technologies. 

It is called the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, and says its aim is to create “a network of private capital committed to building a structure that will allow informed decisions to help accelerate the change to the advanced energy future our planet needs.”

Announced ahead of a major UN climate change conference in Paris this week, the coalition’s members say that enough isn’t being done from established organisations to drive forward research and investment into clean energy.

Writing on Facebook late Sunday night, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that “solving the clean energy problem is an essential part of building a better world … yet progress towards a sustainable energy system is too slow, and the current system doesn’t encourage the kind of innovation that will get us there faster.”

Likewise, the Coalition’s website says that “the existing system of basic research, clean energy investment, regulatory frameworks, and subsidies fails to sufficiently mobilize investment in truly transformative energy solutions for the future. We can’t wait for the system to change through normal cycles.”

In short: Established investors are moving much too slowly towards the renewable energy, and it’s too important to wait for that to sort itself out naturally.

Among the other “Investors” in this new “coalition” are the Puppetmaster himself, George Soros and fellow “Billionaire Philanthropist” Tom Steyer.

Which is interesting, because Breitbart.com’s Steve Milloy reported back on August 17th that

U.S. Securities and Exchange Act filings indicate that Soros has purchased an initial 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and 553,200 shares of Arch Coal, the two largest publicly traded U.S. coal companies. As pointed out last week, both companies have been driven perilously close to bankruptcy by the combination of President Obama’s “war on coal” and inexpensive natural gas brought on by the hydrofracturing revolution.

Under the hypothesis that not even socialists would leave trillions of dollars worth of a perfectly safe and clean energy source in the ground for the sake of the imaginary “climate crisis,” I posited that once the existing coal industry ownership was wiped out by President Obama’s regulatory onslaught, a new politically correct ownership would rehabilitate the fuel by contributing to Democrats.

Enter George Soros, a hardball investor and philanthropist to myriad left-wing causes, including the activist and “clean energy” rent-seeking movements that have helped take down the coal industry. In 2009, for example, Soros announced he would spend $1 billion in “clean energy” technology and create a San Francisco-based advocacy organization called the Climate Policy Initiative.

Less than a year ago the Soros’ Climate Policy Initiative issued a major report concluding that the world could save $1.8 trillion over the next two decades by transitioning away from coal. The report referred to coal reserves as “stranded assets” that were losing value as they were no longer needed.

What a difference a few months makes, especially when those months have seen coal company stocks fall to fire sale prices. So far the size of Soros’ coal investment seems so far relatively small (Peabody has 248 million shares of stock outstanding), but the reports available only cover up to the quarter ending on June 30.

It’s possible that Soros is only looking for a “dead cat bounce” from his Peabody and Arch Coal investments, but the companies together have provable coal reserves of about 11 billion tons, worth hundreds of billions of dollars. I doubt the shrewd Soros is looking to make just a few million dollars on these investments.

Soros isn’t the only leftist shark in the water.

There’s billionaire hedge fund operator Tom Steyer who committed to spend $100 million in 2014 to elect anti-coal, climate alarmist-friendly politicians. Though he failed miserably, he has re-upped for the same program in 2016. Yet Steyer’s dirty secret is that, despite his protestations of concern about the climate, he’s made a fortune from coal production in Indonesia over the past 15 years. It’s easy to imagine some Steyer-steered investment vehicle rescuing sinking coal companies under the guise of turning coal into “clean energy” business. Though the current coal industry trial and failed miserably to do re-brand itself as “clean,” with the right politics and the right payoffs, Steyer no doubt could pull off that trick.

Boys and girls, as the late, great Yogi Berra used to say, this may very well be

Deja vu…all over again.

The Chicago Climate Exchange was North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.

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 traded was, believe it or not, air.

Barack Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002 . What a coincidence, that, as president, pushing cap-and-trade was one of his highest priorities, huh?

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 to close up shop in November of 2010.

However. to this very day, Obama is still relentlessly pursuing “Climate Change”, which the majority of Americans, in poll after poll, have stated is not a National Priority.

And, a group of Investors, among whose number are friends and benefactors of Obama, have formed another group, for the stated purpose of “Duty and Humanity”, in order to, as the Chicago Climate Exchange was going to, “assist in the fight against Climate Change”.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Until He Comes,

KJ