Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Climate Change

by -
climate change

Climate change poses significant national security challenges for the United States and will create large-scale political instability, social disruption and food shortages, according to the nation’s intelligence agency.

It marks the latest of many dire government warnings under President Obama about the ills of global warming and this one comes from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), though the agency concedes it’s based on information provided by the famously corrupt United Nations (UN).

That the nation’s intelligence agency has blindly adopted the information as fact is almost more alarming than the warnings outlined in its 13-page report. The ODNI is the broad agency that serves as an umbrella for the intelligence community and advises the president so its assessments carry a lot of weight.

The ODNI is composed of more than a dozen spy agencies, including Air Force, Army, Navy, Treasury and Coast Guard intelligence as well as the CIA and FBI. This gives it tremendous credibility, which is probably why the UN-created Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is having the ODNI promote its seemingly outlandish findings. Like a good lapdog the ODNI obliged, promoting the questionable information of radical leftwing groups in the process.

The report even suggests that climate change can fuel terrorism by including these nuggets: “In 2015, insurgent groups in northern Mali exploited deepening desertification, worsened by persistent drought, to enlist locals in a “food for jihad” arrangement.”

Here’s another example that illustrates how terrorists benefit from climate change, according to the new intel report. “The terrorist group Al-Shabaab exploited the 2011-13 famine in Somalia to coerce and tax international aid agencies, and it withheld food from those it deemed uncooperative, according to Human Rights Watch.”

For the record, Human Rights Watch is a leftist group with questionable credibility when it comes to security matters so citing it as a source tying terrorism to global warming is almost comical.

As if the assertion that climate change enables terrorists wasn’t far-fetched enough, the ODNI also claims it will destabilize the entire world by risking human health, putting stress on military operations and negatively impacting investments and economic competitiveness.

Meat and dairy lovers beware; “Heatwaves threaten livestock directly and also reduce fertility, decrease milk production, and make them more vulnerable to disease,” the ODNI writes, citing UN science.

“Droughts, wildfires, and extended periods of reduced precipitation threaten pasture and food supplies, indirectly threatening livestock.”

As for health, extreme heat will contribute directly to deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory disease across the globe, particularly among the elderly, the report states.

Military operations worldwide will be negatively impacted because more frequent and intense natural disasters will strain the capacity of U.S. and allied armed forces to deliver humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, according to the ODNI.

As is the case in all global matters, the U.S. will carry most of the burden. “The US military may be called upon more frequently to respond to foreign crises if its counterparts in affected countries are overstretched, unable to handle their own crises or those in their neighborhood,” the report says.

Investments will be affected because “extreme weather events” will discourage investment in regions deemed vulnerable. “Infrastructure will be increasingly threatened by more extreme conditions in the near future, and freshwater from aquifers will be increasingly jeopardized by saltwater intrusion,” the ODNI writes.

“Expectations of future losses will almost certainly increase insurance premiums and payouts, and insurance rates may increase well before real effects are felt in regions deemed vulnerable.”

Additionally, the financial burden of responding to emergent climate trends and severe weather events, including the cost of efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, will reduce financing available for other investments. “Increasing heat stress is likely to adversely affect agriculture, manufacturing, and other sectors requiring physical labor and could significantly contribute to GDP loss.” The Grim Reaper has come to town!

In the last few years President Obama has committed tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to combat climate change—especially in developing countries—through programs operated by the World Bank, the UN and a global initiative called Green Growth Action Alliance headed by a former Mexican president.

To justify the investment, the administration has created hysteria with a number of government-funded studies warning about the dangers of climate change. Among them are reports claiming that global warming will make food and water dangerous, cause mental illness, cancer and threaten national security. In fact, a consortium of Obama administration scientists from several government agencies—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department and National Institute of Environmental Health Science—have confirmed that global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.”

One publicly-funded study claimed that the Washington D.C. area and surrounding government infrastructure will be virtually destroyed by global warming over the next century.

by -

America is free because we allow for open discussion, criticism and opposing views. What happens when one party tries to criminalize opposing thought? We could find out soon.

This year the Democratic Convention is going to be unprecedented for two reasons.

1. Thousands are expected to protest outside in support of Bernie Sanders.

2. For the first time the DNC is going to propose the Department of Justice criminally investigate corporate climate change deniers.

See for yourself. The DNC posted this on their website to outline the platform Hillary will stand on.

“Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.”

Despite the fancy phrases to distract you like “corporate fraud” or “unanimous consent”, the idea is to prosecute those who don’t agree with climate change.

How can they even say things like “unanimous consent”? I’m no ecologist, but I am positive that there are scientists who don’t agree with climate change.

15 years ago Al Gore said the east coast would lose the beaches due to rising seawaters. That didn’t happen. There has to be some disagreement, right?

Not according to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz who is leading the team drafting the platform. She and the DNC now believe corporations that question climate change will be prosecuted.

How far off is prosecution for citizens who don’t agree? How is this possible in America?

If there is condemnation for those who “mislead” the public on climate change by questioning the severity, then shouldn’t the other side be prosecuted as well?

If climate change is a real, then shouldn’t people who overhype it and sensationalize the effects to scare people also be prosecuted? Al Gore should be prosecuted for sensationalizing global warming with his movie An Inconvenient Truth.

The thought that one political party will try to silence an argument by prosecuting those who don’t agree is unfathomable. It is un-American and the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

What is really sad about the DNC platform is that it will become a reality if Hillary wins in November. You better question climate change while you still can.

Do you think climate change is real?

Let us know more on the matter in the comments below.

by -
Climate Change

A $25 million project to help Guatemala combat the ills of climate change is rife with problems that include data errors and discrepancies, no sustainability plan as required by the government and security and funding violations. Though it constitutes an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars, this is par for the course with virtually all of the Obama administration’s “green” ventures, which have largely failed after getting hundreds of millions in federal funds. Among them is a fly-by-night solar panel company (Solyndra) that went under after getting $535 million from the feds and an electric car company (Fisker) that also folded after the government gave it $200 million.

This one is officially known as Climate Nature and Communities in Guatemala (CNCG) and it’s a tiny slice of the president’s broad and costly initiative to conquer global warming in developing nations. The goal is to conserve Guatemala’s wealth of natural resources and support the country’s efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Since the U.S. launched CNCG in 2013, nearly half of the money allocated has been disbursed to a New York-based nonprofit called Rainforest Alliance that oversees a consortium of environmental, academic and business institutions. This group gets a lot of money from Uncle Sam for its various biodiversity conservation causes and, not surprisingly, there’s lots of waste and mismanagement.

In the Guatemala program the issues are documented in a federal audit that blasts Rainforest Alliance for violating government funding rules by, among other things, failing to contribute its share of costs under this contract. Under the arrangement, the U.S. gives the nonprofit $25 million and it agrees to contribute $3.75 as “cost sharing.” The group’s portion must come from in-kind contributions or other sources but can’t come from the government. The audit reveals that Rainforest Alliance claimed it met its cost sharing obligations in the Guatemala program with cash it received from the government under a different deal for firefighting. “Including the firefighting funds as part of cost sharing has resulted in overstating the actual cost share amount by $26,708,” the audit says. “Lack of monitoring by the implementer and the mission can lead to reporting inaccurate information and prevent them from complying with the agreement.”

Additionally, the data compiled in the first two years of the Guatemala project contain a number of errors or discrepancies and auditors determined that much of the information is “inaccurate or lacked sufficient support.” The environmentalists also failed to develop a sustainability plan as required by the government to carry on program efforts after the five-year federal funding period expired. “Two years into implementation, no plan existed,” auditors write in the report, further pointing out that “without a sustainability plan, the funds used to help the Guatemalan Government and other partners manage the country’s natural resources to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change could be wasted.”

As if all this weren’t bad enough participants didn’t undergo required background checks, a violation of government rules put in place to ensure that no criminals receive training funded with federal money.

This is just a snippet of the pervasive fraud and corruption in the vast majority of the administration’s green initiatives. Besides failed domestic programs like the ones mentioned earlier, the U.S. has spent billions to fight global warming in poor countries, mainly through a program known as Global Climate Change Initiative. The cash keeps flowing into its coffers because the administration claims that climate change is one of the century’s greatest challenges that can compound pre-existing social stresses, including poverty, hunger, conflict, migration and the spread of disease.

The U.S. also contributes to climate change causes via a multi-billion-dollar World Bank initiative to combat its effects in poor and African and Asian countries that stand to suffer most. The U.S. is the World Bank’s largest contributor so Americans are getting stuck with a huge chunk of that tab.

by -
climate change

If Obama’s serious about climate change, it’s going to cost him literally trillions of dollars.

While leaders from the world’s richest countries met in Paris to hammer out a global treaty on climate change, a group of poorer countries were also meeting—and figuring out how they could turn the West’s climate guilt into a big bundle of cash.

According to The Times of London, these countries came in with big demands—totaling $3.5 trillion—in order to sign on to the controversial treaty.

The Times reports:

“Developing countries have added a clause to the latest draft of the text under which they would be paid the ‘full costs’ of meeting plans to cut emissions.

An analysis of plans published by 73 developing countries shows that they want $3.5 trillion by 2030. India alone is seeking $2.5 trillion…”

However, the amount of money is proving to be a contentious point. Developed countries have pledged $100 billion a year in financing to poorer countries, by 2020.

While that’s a massive amount of money, it’s a far cry from $3.5 trillion.

India’s environmental minister, Prakash Javadekar, said that the West was going to have to do better—since the billions his country is currently receiving is “not significant.”

The big problem with getting poorer countries to sign onto climate change regulation is the added expense. When countries like the United States and the United Kingdom industrialized in the late 1800s and early 1900s, pollution wasn’t a concern—meaning factories and technology could be developed cheaply.

But by adding more expenses to startup costs for industrialization, it makes it harder for countries like India to develop—hence why they’re basically saying that, if the West wants climate change so badly, they’re going to have to pay for it.

So far, no final deal has been made.

by -
Obama Mad

Ouch. In a recent Fox News poll, just 3% of Americans listed Obama’s favorite issue, “climate change,” as the most important issue facing the country.

That means, despite Obama’s efforts to make global warming a major wedge issue, 97% of Americans really just don’t care all that much.

In fact, even among Democrats, only 6% listed global warming as their biggest concern. Just 1% of Republicans did.

And, worse for liberals, the issue is quickly faded from consciousness altogether. The Fox News poll shows a considerable dropoff in support from August. In August, people who cared about climate change was at 5%–nearly double to what it is now.

Almost since the day Obama was elected–infamously vowing to stop the rise of the seas–he tried to make global warming a major issue, but so far, he’s failed on almost every front.

One of the first major fights of his presidency centered around cap-and-trade–essentially, a surtax on companies that pollute–which failed to pass, even with Obama’s then-overwhelming supermajority in the Senate.

And, since then, the so-called “consensus” in the United States has lost even its lukewarm appetite for global warming regulation.

The bad news comes as Obama plans to meet world leaders in Paris for a United Nations summit on climate change. Obama’s plan is to force through a global agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions–but if other countries think like America, it may not stand a chance.

by -
freedom index

Even as President Barack Obama reminds the world in the wake of the massive ISIS attacks in Paris that America, under his “leadership,” has little interest in leading on anything other than “climate change” rhetoric, the Unites States continues to lose ground to other nations in terms of the freedom it affords its own citizens.

According to the Human Freedom Index, a report issued by the Cato Institute’s Ian Vasquez and the Visio Institut, and which measures the level of personal and economic freedom in countries around the world, the country that once held high the torch of freedom in the world, now ranks 20th; behind countries such as Hong Kong, Canada, the U.K., Germany, Mauritius, and 14 others.

The easy answer for this sobering reality check is to blame inept leaders like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. However, these individuals are but a symptom of a far more fundamental problem that has deeply eroded the foundation of our nation.

Over the last several years, we have undergone a debilitating transition from leadership guided by principled ideas and understanding, to a parade of politicos who respond to the calamity of the day (be it ISIS, mass shootings, or corporate corruption) with reactive policies designed to stoke the fires of fear most effectively and quickly. In this environment, with each shriek of “doom” followed by a “quick fix” to “save the people,” America becomes a little less free. Having realized that leading by fear, not principle, is a formula for gaining media coverage and fundraising dollars, political opportunists salivate at the next chance to look “presidential.”

Consider for a moment the current presidential campaign being waged by Donald Trump. Despite religious freedom being one of the principles on which the United States was founded, Trump’s reaction to the terrorist attacks in Paris is to call for the closing of U.S. mosques. Trump’s fellow neophyte presidential candidate Ben Carson, seemingly unaware of the dangerous precedent of using bureaucrats as speech police, has suggested using the Department of Education to “monitor” political bias on college campuses. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush trumpets his desire to go back in time and kill “Baby Hitler.”

Democrats are not in any better shape. Their nominee-in-waiting, Hillary Clinton, is a crony corporatist whose sense of civil and personal liberties is guided by whatever position is polling best that day. The Democrat’s back up, Bernie Sanders, is an avowed socialist wailing constantly for “free” everything, and idiotically fixated on “climate change” as the most dire and immediate threat facing the country.

Depth of leadership at the top is hardly an environment in which freedom can survive for long; and indeed it isn’t, as the Freedom Index chronicles. As Americans, we tend to take for granted what is necessary to preserve freedom; for one thing, in our short history as a nation we have never experienced the true brutality of monarchies, dictatorships, juntas, or other forms of rule that fill the vacuum when Liberty disappears. We forget that for Liberty to survive, it takes more than a physical defense of the country; it requires a philosophical understanding and defense of the Constitution, in order to defeat enemies who use words and ideas rather than bombs and bullets to achieve their aims.

Without leaders who genuinely understand the foundation of American freedom, and who can truly defend not just the effectiveness of individual and economic freedom, but the morality of this freedom, we are as defenseless as a country without an army. After all, how can our leaders protect our constitutional freedoms if they do not understand why we have a written Constitution in the first place, or why sacrificing some these freedoms for our “safety” undermines them all?

Unfortunately, this is exactly what will continue to happen if we choose to elect leaders like our current president, whose comprehension of freedom is nothing more than a sound bite or message on a campaign poster.

Upon exiting the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Ben Franklin reportedly was asked whether the Founding Fathers had built a monarchy, or a Republic as the governing structure for our new nation. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin replied. When looking ahead to the 2016 elections, perhaps the real question we should ask ourselves is not if we can keep the Republic, but if we still possess the will and the understanding to do so.

by -

The Obama Administration will rename the tallest mountain in North America as a symbolic gesture to Alaska’s native population–and remove the name of a former Republican president.

Mount McKinley is named after the 25th President of the United States William McKinley, who was assassinated in 1901. McKinley was a Republican.

The mountain’s new name will be Denali, an Athabascan word meaning “the high one.”

“With our own sense of reverence for this place, we are officially renaming the mountain Denali in recognition of the traditions of Alaska Natives and the strong support of the people of Alaska,” said Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell.

Whether the mountain should be called Denali or Mount McKinley has been a contentious issue for decades–especially because McKinley never visited Alaska. Many Alaskans informally call the mountain Denali, but the name of the mountain had officially been Mount McKinley.

Though the mountain had been known as Denali by the locals, it got its name in 1898 after a man exploring the mountains heard McKinley had won the Republican nomination for President–and decided that the name of the tallest mountain in central Alaska should be McKinley. The federal government officially recognized the name as Mount McKinley in 1917.

The decades-long fight pitted Alaska against, interestingly, Ohio, where President McKinley was from. Ohio politicians were livid at Obama for unilaterally changing the name without Congress’s approval.

Obama plans to go to Alaska for three days to hold listening sessions with Alaskan Natives and to drum up support for his climate change agenda.

While he plans to showcase the effects of rising temperatures on Alaska’s landscape and its impact on native populations, Obama will instead be greeted by a rare summer snow during his trip to Alaska.

by -

Last week’s Tweet of President Barack Obama with rolled up sleeves, enjoying a waffle cone and wishing Americans “Happy Memorial Day,” may have been nothing more than an effort by the President’s political hacks to convince the American people that he is, after all, a “regular guy.” Perhaps it was drafted and sent by some obscure, 20s-something political operative with no idea what the true meaning of Memorial Day is. Whatever. Sadly, over the past six-and-a-half years, we have seen many such examples of Obama’s insensitivity to our country’s history, heritage and culture.

Far more serious, however, were the President’s own words last week to the graduating class at the United States Coast Guard Academy.

In his remarks – designed by protocol to address America’s newest military leaders at all of our service academies — Obama warned of an issue that “constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security”; one that requires our immediate attention. Considering the fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi to Islamic State forces only days prior, one might have expected the President’s comments to focus on the growing threat presented by that terror organization. Or, perhaps he was about to alert the young officers to the threat posed by China’s bellicosity in the Far East; or Russia’s resurgent imperialist designs.

But no. The man designated in our Constitution as America’s Commander-in-Chief was instead directing our armed forces to focus its attention elsewhere; on what to him is an over-arching, global national security threat: climate change.

The fall of Ramadi, a crushing symbolic blow to the sacrifice of blood and resources expended by the United States a decade earlier in the Iraqi War, barely registered a blip on the Administration’s radar. It fell to Josh Earnest, Obama’s media mouthpiece, to deflect criticism of the President’s anemic response to ISIL’s latest victory. With a very straight face, the young Mr. Earnest stated that the President’s strategy actually has been a success overall; he went so far as to lecture reporters that this Administration was not going to “light our hair on fire” every time there might be a “setback” on the ground.

But change the subject to the real national security threat these young officers will face in the years ahead, according to this President – climate change – and the tone becomes deadly serious.

We are witnessing the transition of the President of the United States from the Commander-in-Chief to the “Weatherman-in-Chief.” If it were not so deadly serious, it would make for a delightful Will Ferrell movie. Unfortunately for us, it’s a real world out there, not a Hollywood production; real people die when mistakes are made, and a country’s vital national security interests are diminished when leaders fail to grasp reality or heed history. This President is in so far over his head he could swim upwards for the remaining two years of his presidency and never break the surface.

The list of serious issues facing the United States is long: unresolved crises at our borders, civil liberties and the NSA, the national debt, the sluggish economy, mounting ObamaCare bills, Vladimir Putin, a nuclear Iran, and the list goes on and on. Yet it is the largely discredited specter of climate change that registers front and center on this Administration’s list of threats to our national security.

Whether Obama actually believes his own rhetoric, or is simply playing to the liberal base of the Democratic Party is unclear; and it’s likely a combination of motivations.

Obama’s view of the world, and of America’s position in it has been shown by his rhetoric and actions alike to have no anchor in history or understanding. But he is a sufficiently savvy politician to grasp the fact that periodically waving the red flags that excite the liberal base – including, of course, “global warming” and climate change – garners media support and poll points. He also knows that, if such themes are trumpeted in conjunction with the term “national security,” it can be made to appear (to some, at least) that he actually knows something about national security. Smoke and mirrors played professionally and well.

The non sequitur of linking climate change – regardless of whether real, not real, or imagined – with the daunting, real world challenges our armed forces face and will be facing in the world, tends to “degrade” our country’s ability to focus on those real problems. At the same time, it erodes the important calling for America’s best and brightest young people to strive to become officers by attending one of our service academies. After all, if you are simply going to spend a career fighting the weather, there are easier paths to follow than surviving the rigors of four years at West Point or Annapolis.



When Comey, the director of the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton, it looks like it had more to do with money than...