Climate Change Not Polling Well With Farmers, Albertans

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 8:45 am

The Cult of Climastrology has previously trotted out a talking point that we should listen to the farmers, because they are supposedly on the front lines, having to deal with the changing of planting and picking seasons. Well, what do they have to say?

(Farm Pulse) Want proof that the climate change debate has become politicized in the United States? Look no further than a Nov. 2015 survey by the Pew Research Center.

The group asked Americans if they believe global climate change is a “very serious problem.” While 68% of democrats said it was, only 20% of republicans did. Pew also asked respondents if climate change is harming people now, and 53% of democrats versus 24% of republicans agreed.

A month later, Farm Journal Pulse asked farmers the exact same question: “Do you think climate change is a serious problem?” A total of 1,783 answered, with 78% saying no and 22% saying yes.

Huh. Here’s what it looks like

So much for 25+ years of scaremongering spreading awareness.

(CBC) The NDP’s new climate change plan is not going over well with Albertans, according a survey released Monday by Mainstreet-Postmedia.

The poll suggests 68 per cent of Albertans are opposed to the overall strategy, 22 per cent are in favour and 10 per cent are undecided.

The introduction of a carbon tax was opposed by 66 per cent of respondents.

Now, why would they be against a carbon tax?

The carbon tax on industry is expected to raise $3 billion a year, to be reinvested in renewable energy sectors and cover increased costs to consumers.

But the strategy will be paid for not only by industry, but by ordinary Albertans.

The province estimates the carbon tax will amount to roughly $470 in increased heating, electricity and transportation costs for an average household in 2018.

The Cult’s policies have real world implications for people. Negative ones. And will certainly do more harm to the middle and lower classes. Only in the big city of Edmonton does a carbon tax poll above water, 45% approving, 41% against. Calgary goes 33 for and 70 against. Overall, outside the cities, just 18% support a carbon tax.

I guess they do not want to be like Ontario, which “invested” tens of billions in “green” energy, and now cannot provide basic services, they’ve seen energy costs spike, and are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Read: Climate Change Not Polling Well With Farmers, Albertans »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

“One Person, One Vote” Heads To Supreme Court

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 8:04 am

This has made the NY Times very upset. Why?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in a voting rights case that has the potential to shift political power from urban areas to rural ones, a move that would provide a big boost to Republican voters in many parts of the nation.

The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, will address a question many thought had been settled long ago: What is the meaning of the principle of “one person, one vote”?

The principle, rooted in cases from the 1960s that revolutionized democratic representation in the United States, applies to the entire American political system aside from the Senate, where voters from states with small populations have vastly more voting power than those with large ones. Everywhere else, voting districts must have very close to the same populations.

But the Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on who must be counted: all residents or just eligible voters?

The difference matters, because people who are not eligible to vote — children, immigrants here legally who are not citizens, unauthorized immigrants, people disenfranchised for committing felonies, prisoners — are not spread evenly across the country. With the exception of prisoners, they tend to be concentrated in urban areas.

Their presence amplifies the voting power of people eligible to vote in urban areas, usually helping Democrats. Rural areas that lean Republican, by contrast, usually have higher percentages of residents eligible to vote.

Getting beyond the NY Times’ tortured concern that Democrats will lose some political power, what this comes down to is “who is represented?” SCOTUSblog noted

The Supreme Court famously said, in 1964, that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres.”  That was its basic explanation for getting away from the traditional pattern of mapping election districts by geographic area, rather than by the people who are to be represented.  But the lingering question is: who are “the people” who are represented?

They could be the voters who actually go to the polls to exercise that right.  They could be the people eligible to vote, many of whom stay away from the polls.  They could be only the U.S. citizens.  They could be all the people, even those who do not have the right to vote — because they are children, non-citizens, or prison inmates, for example.

The plaintiffs want district apportionment to be determined by voters, as in, people who are eligible to vote. The suit makes an interesting case: should people who aren’t eligible to vote be counted in the census in terms of developing voting districts? A case could be made that non-eligible to vote US citizens should be counted, but, not non-citizens, regardless of whether they are legally or illegally present.

Of course, this has driven the reliably nutjob Salon to be nutjob, and they take it down the road of raaaaacism. Shocking, eh? They say this is a “dangerous assault on voting rights”.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was enacted so that people of color would no longer be considered only three-fifths of a person; the Evenwel plaintiffs now argue that some people should now be counted as zero-fifths of a person. This offensive scheme would dilute the ability of communities to elect the candidates of their choice and would stifle resources allocated to the districts where these populations have been undercounted. This simply cannot be rationalized in a democracy.

In a sane world (which is not Salon, obviously), the discussion would be centered on whether US citizens who are not eligible to vote would be included in the population count when creating voting districts. The insane leftists have made it so that we have to discuss whether people who are legally or illegally present in the United States should be counted, because they supposedly deserve representation. The length of legal VISAs varies. But, the vast majority do not even approach 10 years. The US holds a census every 10 years. Why should they be counted?

Illegals? Why should they be counted at all?

Evenwel v. Abbott marks a critical turning point. Our nation can take a regressive pivot backwards or affirm our core values of equality and justice. While the Supreme Court could let the Evenwel plaintiffs force chaotic and discriminatory redistricting schemes upon us all, the better choice is to uphold our most fundamental right to equal representation.

The central question goes back to “why would non-US citizens be counted for representation in the first place? They aren’t US citizens.”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: “One Person, One Vote” Heads To Supreme Court »

Posted in Constitution | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 7, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…are melting glaciers that never ever melted before fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on victim blaming.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bernie Sanders Decides To Go Brownshirt With His Climate Plan

By William Teach December 7, 2015 – 10:52 am

This AP article at US News and World Report is about Bernie Sanders scheduled to release his big Hotcoldwetdry plan today. You know, a few days after yet another murderous rampage by Islamists here in the United States

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is rolling out a plan to slow the effect of climate change, vowing to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

The Democratic presidential candidate said in a proposal released on Monday he would seek to impose a tax on carbon dioxide pollution, long a nonstarter with majority Republicans in Congress, and aim to slash carbon pollution in the U.S. by 80 percent by 2050 compared to levels in 1990. The proposal, he said, would put “people before the profits of polluters.”

Sanders has made efforts to reduce global warming a cornerstone of his presidential campaign and his 16-page proposal, released as negotiators meet at the U.N. climate conference in Paris, provides the first extensive details on how he would seek to address it.

I suppose it would be too much for the AP to link to the the plan. Before I get to Bernie’s hyper-leftist wish list (it’s not so much a plan as bullet points), here’s the fun part of the article

Democrats view climate change as part of a winning formula against Republicans in the 2016 elections, and Sanders’ primary opponents, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, have offered wide-ranging environmental plans. Many Republican candidates have been dismissive of global warming despite public support for efforts to combat it.

They’re more than welcome to make it a cornerstone. It’s been a minor, minor issue that hasn’t swayed voters in the past, and, when stacked up against real issues that impact everyday citizens, it is last or next to last.

A few things looking at Bernie’s so-called plan. It spends quite a bit whining about things that haven’t happened, but could possibly maybe might happen! As mentioned, he wants to cut “carbon pollution”, of which there is no such thing. Then

Create a Clean-Energy Workforce of 10 million good-paying jobs by creating a 100% clean energy system. Transitioning toward a completely nuclear-free clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is not only possible and affordable it will create millions of good jobs, clean up our air and water, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

So far, these green jobs have barely materialized, even with the full backing of taxpayer funds. Notice he wants to also eliminate nuclear energy.

Return billions of dollars to consumers impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change. Bernie will tax polluters causing the climate crisis, and return billions of dollars to working families to ensure the fossil fuel companies don’t subject us to unfair rate hikes. Bernie knows that climate change will not affect everyone equally – disenfranchised minority communities and the working poor will be hardest hit. The carbon tax will also protect those most impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change.

He’s acknowledging that his plan will cause extreme financial pain to middle and lower class citizens.

Obviously, despite his own massive use of fossil fuels, he has his hate on for the fossil fuels industry. He’ll ban Arctic drilling, offshore drilling, pipeline projects, fracking, and exporting liquefied natural gas and oil.

There’s way to much to fisk, but, here’s where it gets really disturbing

Create a national environmental and climate justice plan that recognizes the heightened public health risks faced by low-income and minority communities. Low-income and minority neighborhoods will continue to be the hardest hit if we don’t act to stop climate change now.

Does that sound like he is going to Brownshirt away in the name of ‘climate change’?

Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change. It is an embarrassment that Republican politicians, with few exceptions, refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change, let alone are prepared to do anything about it. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is to blame for much of the climate change skepticism in America. Bernie recently called for the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon Mobil, which may have not only known about the dangers of climate change, but has spent millions of dollars to spread doubt about the causes and impacts of burning fossil fuels.

Yes, it does sound like he’s going to Brownshirt away in violation of our 1st Amendment. Prick a Warmist and you find a Fascist. To use a word Warmists love to throw around, I find it “chilling” that a candidate for President of the USA to put into writing a plan to go after people who hold viewpoints he disagrees with.

Read: Bernie Sanders Decides To Go Brownshirt With His Climate Plan »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Paris Climate Talks: Not Really About Climate, Just All About Money And Trust

By William Teach December 7, 2015 – 7:20 am

But, mostly the money

(NY Times) The international climate change negotiations entering their second and final week encompass a vast and complicated array of political, economic and legal questions. But at bottom, the talks boil down to two issues: trust and money.

In this global forum, no one questions the established science that greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels are warming the planet — or that both developed and developing economies must all eventually lower their greenhouse emissions to stave off a future that could wreak havoc on the world’s safety and economic stability.

If “no one questions”, why did the vast majority take long, fossil fueled trips to Paris?

In a major breakthrough, 184 governments have already submitted plans detailing how they will cut their domestic emissions after 2020.

Those pledges are expected to make up the core of a new accord, which could be signed next weekend. The agreement is also expected to require countries to return to the table at least once every 10 years with even more stringent emissions reduction pledges.

But can those governments be trusted to do what they say they will do?

That is the crucial question that will determine whether a Paris climate change accord has teeth, or whether it is little more than an expression of good will.

Consider that almost no country kept to their Kyoto Protocol agreements. Still, it’s not really about trust (nor climate change), it’s about the money

But rich countries such as the United States have insisted that most of that money come from private investments, rather than taxpayer dollars.

President Obama’s initial pledge of $3 billion in climate finance over three years is already meeting with fierce objections from Congress.

But India has demanded that a final text include legally binding language that would commit the developed world to allocating the money from public funds.

“We will push for an increase in public spending,” said Ajay Mathur, an Indian climate change negotiator. “We want developed countries to provide resources that can help mobilize capital. The amounts that have been pledged are not enough.”

The non-developed and 2nd world nations want lots and lots of cash from the developed world, and a legally binding promise that they’ll get it. They do not want to hear that some private entities might possibly pony up that money: they want it forcibly confiscated from taxpayers. A redistribution scheme to enrich their treasuries, rather than having private entities build low carbon infrastructure and similar measures.

Read: Paris Climate Talks: Not Really About Climate, Just All About Money And Trust »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Primetime Oval Office Speech As Boring As Expected

By William Teach December 7, 2015 – 7:06 am

He spent 13 long, long minutes yammering, in an attempt to calm the nation. The broadcast was surreal, in that, instead of sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, he had a podium. He used his soft voice, which he apparently thinks is calming and reassuring, when, in fact, it puts people to sleep and makes it appear as if he doesn’t care.

(LA Times) President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval Office on Sunday night hoping to reassure anxious Americans that his administration has a strategy to defeat Islamic State overseas, and to protect Americans from the threat of homegrown terrorism.

But the 13-minute speech underscored the magnitude of the challenge and the dearth of options for the White House.

Obama revealed no new ideas or plans for dismantling Islamic State, and he again ruled out sending a large force of U.S. ground troops to fight in the Middle East.

Yesterday, I mentioned things we should expect. How’d I do? Using the transcript from Vox

  • It’s scheduled for 8pm, so, it will start at around 8:10 (not his usual late, because he wants to be done by kickoff) (only a few minutes late)
  • He’ll blame the rise of ISIS on Bush’s “war of choice” in Iraq (surprisingly, he didn’t. He did yammer on about me, myself, and I, though)
  • He’ll minimize the danger to the United States and its citizens from ISIS and other radical Islamic groups (he basically said they were contained)
  • He won’t even use the phrase “radical Islam” or anything near that (he made mention that a tiny section of Muslims are radicalized, but quickly told us that all these Islamic terrorists are not really Muslims)
  • He’ll trot out the strawman that blaming all Muslims is, to put it simply, Islamophobia and un-American (yes, he did. Spent roughly 3:31 doing this)
  • He’ll make some equivalency arguments about Christians and the Crusades and Inquisition (nope)
  • He’ll say that his strategy in fighting ISIS is working (despite all appearances) (he did this 100%)
  • He’ll quickly veer into other subjects, starting with allowing all the Syrian refugees in, and will say they go through the “most rigorous background checks, without mentioning that they rely on the refugees deciding to tell the truth (nope)
  • He’ll spend a lot of time on instituting gun control, failing to mention that California has the exact type of gun laws that he and other liberals say will stop these types of shootings (did spend a short time on gun control)
  • He’ll whine about Republicans blocking the use of the no-fly list for gun ownership, an arbitrary list with little to no due process, which would have made it impossible for Senator Ted Kennedy to obtain a firearm. For a so-called “Constitutional scholar”, he sure seems to fail at knowing and enforcing the Bill of Rights (Oh, yes, he did)
  • He’ll have his sad face on, and end up telling us with a wag of a finger that we had best not be mean and say negative things about Muslims (lots of time on this)
  • The only time Obama will get passionate will be during the gun control portion. He’ll be dull as dishtowel while discussing the actual shooting, because he really just doesn’t care (He was actually dull as a dishtowel for the entire thing. He didn’t show any passion whatsoever)

It was a speech from a man who has basically given his 2 week notice and is just going through the motions.

There are several steps that Congress should take right away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

Again, even the ACLU is against this list, and sued to make it easier for people to be able to get off this list. It would not have stopped the San Bernardino killers, nor any of the other mass shooters. Foreigners on the list can’t purchase guns legally, since they are not US citizens.

Vox says this speech was not aimed at pundits and insiders, but the average person who doesn’t pay attention that much.

These points may have been old hat to political insiders, but the White House clearly felt this message wasn’t getting through in the news coverage of recent days — and wanted to try and shore up Obama’s sagging terrorist-fighting credentials in the face of intense criticism from Republicans.

So, this speech was All About Obama. Offered nothing new, was long on finger wagging.

BTW, NJ.com has perhaps the silliest story

That’s from their web front page (story here). But, I guess the NJ Devils did rather terrorize the Florida Panthers, at least on the score sheet.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Primetime Oval Office Speech As Boring As Expected »

Posted in Barry Obama, RoP | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Totally Strengthens ISIS Or Something

By William Teach December 6, 2015 – 4:44 pm

This is a recurring meme from the Cult of Climastrology. If they can’t directly Blame something on Hotcoldwetdry, they say that ‘climate change’ is making it worse. Or, heck, sometimes do both. In this case, Time writer Eugene Jarecki (repeated at the Huff Post) goes withe the latter

Don’t Forget That Climate Change Strengthens ISIS

This week’s climate-change conference in Paris offers an opportunity to reflect on the world’s reactions to the tragedy committed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria there last month.Will any constructive connection be drawn between the impact of man-made climate change and the social, economic, and political instability on which ISIS recruitment depends? Can we learn to address the source—not the symptoms—of a global problem? (snip)

…Now let’s also imagine that what is enabling ISIS to recruit young operatives is a range of global conditions so denigrating to them that the promise of the future seems inferior to that which, after committing murder, might await them in the afterlife.

And……that’s about it. That’s the sum total of the argument as mentioned in the headline. The rest is about how we shouldn’t go all macho and fight back and that the United States and the Western world are totally at fault. Because, something something and climate change. But, let’s consider something else, as Christopher J. Green covers at Flopping Aces

5 Awkward Questions About Islam Barack Obama Doesn’t Want You To Ask

…….

1. Many Muslims claim to be opposed to the barbaric acts of terror committed by jihadists in the name of Islam. Additionally, liberals and leftists will assert that most Muslims are opposed to Islamic State. However, there’s a glaring contradiction, an elephant in the room these apologists are desperate to avoid.

Muhammad, the revered prophet of Islam stated:

“I have been sent with a sword to fight people until they say there is no God but Allah.” Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387.

In Islam Muhammad is regarded as “the ideal man, the perfect model of conduct.” This prophet and his army of devout Muslims waged jihad against infidels and he PERSONALLY spread Islam by the sword. He and his band of brigands did not distort, twist or misunderstand Islam as they waged war against Jewish tribes in the Middle East, beheading their enemies and raping their women. So let’s ask our first uncomfortable question:

To those Muslims who say violence is against Islam: If ISIS truly is “nothing to do with Islam” then is Muhammad also unIslamic and do you condemn and reject his violent “perfect example”?

Liberals and leftists can make as many excuses for jihad as they like but the fact will remain: The mujahideen of ISIS are emulating the “perfect example” set by Muhammad described in the holy texts of Islam, the Sunnah and hadith, and are also obeying the numerous commands in the Quran to wage war on infidels until the world belongs solely to Allah.

I don’t want to take anything away from the great research that Christopher did, and excerpt more than I usually would. Please read the entire post for the rest of the details, and consider, as I once wrote before, that the real radical Muslims are those that are not practicing Islam as laid down by Muhammad. They aren’t upset about ‘climate change’. A tiny 1.4F increase in global temperatures in 165 years is not strengthening ISIS or any other Islamic fundamentalists. They’ve been doing this since the 600’s. To link ‘climate change’ as a major factor, heck, they seem to be saying it is a primary factor, is the height of absurdity, and highlights the un-scientific, and wholly political, nature of the arguments from the Cult of Climastrology.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Totally Strengthens ISIS Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, RoP | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 6, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is heat created snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on the latest attack by the JV team.

It’s snow week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach December 6, 2015 – 8:54 am

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day in the Once And Future Nation Of America. The sun is shining, the birds are singing, the Jets will be crash landing in the land of the Giants (probably jinxed them now). This pinup is by Pearl Frush, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Right Scoop notes the political beliefs of the San Bernardino terrorist
  2. Theodore’s World notes a former congressman daring Loretta Lynch
  3. The Lonely Conservative wonders when women will have to register for selective service
  4. The Last Refuge notes yet another peaceful member of the ROP
  5. The Daley Gator covers the Islamopologists visiting a radical mosque
  6. Reaganite Republican notes why Italians are good at anti-terrorism
  7. Powerline contrasts sea rise vs terrorism
  8. Political Clown Parade notes that make believe can be fun for Babs Boxer
  9. Neo-neocon is totally confident in the vetting process
  10. Moobattery discusses Bill Nye linking climate change to terrorism
  11. Maggie’s Notebook covers how well the FBI’s watch list is working
  12. Legal Insurrection has politically correct emojis
  13. Jammie Wearing Fools covers Muslim motives no longer mattering
  14. Fire Andrea Mitchell has seven reasons to buy a gun
  15. And last, but not least, Datechguy has the elite liberal “kill me last” caucus explained.

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Semi-retired President To Make Oval Office Broadcast On San Bernardino Islamic Terrorist Attack

By William Teach December 6, 2015 – 7:42 am

He’ll surely tell us to remain calm, all is well

(CNN) President Barack Obama on Sunday night will deliver a rare Oval Office address about terror threats in the aftermath of the San Bernardino, California, shootings that claimed 14 lives. CNN and other networks will broadcast it live at 8 p.m. ET.

The White House says the president will provide an update on the investigation. Federal authorities have said the attacks are being investigated as an act of terrorism.

“The President will also discuss the broader threat of terrorism, including the nature of the threat, how it has evolved, and how we will defeat it,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement. “He will reiterate his firm conviction that ISIL will be destroyed and that the United States must draw upon our values — our unwavering commitment to justice, equality and freedom — to prevail over terrorist groups that use violence to advance a destructive ideology.”

Will he say what we’ve all known for a long time, that ISIS is not a JV team, and, along with the rest of radical Islam, presents an real and substantial threat to the United States?

I think we really know how this will go:

  • It’s scheduled for 8pm, so, it will start at around 8:10 (not his usual late, because he wants to be done by kickoff)
  • He’ll blame the rise of ISIS on Bush’s “war of choice” in Iraq
  • He’ll minimize the danger to the United States and its citizens from ISIS and other radical Islamic groups
  • He won’t even use the phrase “radical Islam” or anything near that
  • He’ll trot out the strawman that blaming all Muslims is, to put it simply, Islamophobia and un-American
  • He’ll make some equivalency arguments about Christians and the Crusades and Inquisition
  • He’ll say that his strategy in fighting ISIS is working (despite all appearances)
  • He’ll quickly veer into other subjects, starting with allowing all the Syrian refugees in, and will say they go through the “most rigorous background checks, without mentioning that they rely on the refugees deciding to tell the truth
  • He’ll spend a lot of time on instituting gun control, failing to mention that California has the exact type of gun laws that he and other liberals say will stop these types of shootings
  • He’ll whine about Republicans blocking the use of the no-fly list for gun ownership, an arbitrary list with little to no due process, which would have made it impossible for Senator Ted Kennedy to obtain a firearm. For a so-called “Constitutional scholar”, he sure seems to fail at knowing and enforcing the Bill of Rights
  • He’ll have his sad face on, and end up telling us with a wag of a finger that we had best not be mean and say negative things about Muslims
  • The only time Obama will get passionate will be during the gun control portion. He’ll be dull as dishtowel while discussing the actual shooting, because he really just doesn’t care

The only question remains, will he veer into a discussion of climate change, and how climate change creates terrorists and wars and refugees, and how the climate meetings in Paris will Solve All? I’m going to give that a 35% chance at showing up during his surely long, long, boring finger wagging session.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Semi-retired President To Make Oval Office Broadcast On San Bernardino Islamic Terrorist Attack »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 9 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove