Obama Only Wants Tiny Part Of Any Climate Deal To Be Legally Binding

By William Teach December 2, 2015 – 7:17 am

Mr. Obama took a long, massive fossil fueled trip to Paris for just a short 2 days, before jetting out. Any climate deal is supposed to be part of his “legacy”. Any deal is supposed to save the planet from certain doom. He thinks if we don’t Do Something fish will be swimming in the streets of Miami (which shows an utterly average .78 feet rise over 100 years trend). Strangely, he wants any deal to be mostly non-binding (like his Iran deal)

(UK Guardian) Barack Obama declared on Tuesday that some components to a global climate change agreement must carry legal force, easing one obstacle to a successful outcome at negotiations in Paris.

In an apparent compromise, Obama said the US would push for certain aspects of a climate change agreement to be legally binding – going some distance to meeting a key demand of the European Union and some developing countries.

However, Obama offered no change in the US position on the overall nature of the agreement sought at Paris.

The US has been clear from the outset that it will not sign on to a full-fledged climate change treaty because it would have virtually no chance of passage through a Republican-controlled Congress.

For someone who was supposed to be this super awesome communicator, and was going to do things differently in Washington, and bring everyone together, and who has a background in community organizing, Obama is not very good at convincing people to work together and do things, wouldn’t you say? Of course, back in 1998, even Democrats, including President Clinton, realized that joining any sort of international binding treaty on Hotcoldwetdry would be bad for the U.S. economy, hence, the Senate voted 95-0 against joining Kyoto.

On Tuesday, however, Obama said the US wanted one major component of the deal – the periodic review of emissions reductions targets – to be legally binding.

So, a mostly meaningless review. That’s what he wants to be legally binding. Of course, how can it be legally binding unless he submits it to the Legislative Branch?

[Obama] also said that his climate legacy would survive after he leaves the White House at the end of his presidency next year. “Whoever is the next president of the United States if they come in and they suggest somehow that that global consensus – not just 99.5% of scientists and experts but 99.5% of world leaders – think this is really important I think the president of the United States is going to think this is really important.”

Perhaps 99.5% of those attending the working vacation in the lovely lovers spot of Paris. And, certainly, world leaders who want more control of citizens think it’s important. Against real issues for voters, though? Last or next to last. At the same time Obama was yammering in Paris, in Washington something else happened

Hours after President Barack Obama pushed for an international agreement to combat climate change, the GOP-led House of Representatives voted to block that effort and demonstrate the President didn’t have support in his own country.

The House passed a pair of resolutions, largely along party lines, that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing rules the administration released earlier this year to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Both measures, already approved by the Senate in October, now go to the White House, which has already vowed to veto them. Democrats maintain Republicans don’t have the vote to override any veto so they denounced the debate as a waste of time.

The resolutions cited Congress’ power under the “Congressional Review Act” to weigh in on new regulations. The bills would prohibit EPA from enforcing limits on electric utilities and coal plants. Republicans on the floor said they deliberately held the votes the same day as the president’s remarks at an international climate change conference in Paris to show the president faced opposition back home.

Well, that’s strange. The people who are tasked with passing laws and reviewing Executive Branch rules need to reign in an out of control Executive.

(Examiner) Obama also took another swipe at Republicans, saying, “Sometimes it may be hard for Republicans to support something that I’m doing, but that’s more a matter of games Washington plays, and that’s why I think people should be confident that we’ll meet our commitments on this.” Based on recent polls, it’s not just Republicans opposed to the president dragging our economy into the dark ages. A November poll showed 97 percent of registered voters aren’t worried about global warming. More telling, 94 percent of Democrats aren’t concerned about global warming.

Obama’s supposed to be this great communicator, but, all he’s able to do is be divisive and nasty. Is it any wonder Republicans really don’t want to work with him on anything? Especially when it comes to a junk science issue that is all about implementing far left fascistic policies?

Read: Obama Only Wants Tiny Part Of Any Climate Deal To Be Legally Binding »

Posted in Barry Obama, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Former Head Of DIA Claims Team Obama Ignorned Rise Of ISIS Intelligence

By William Teach December 2, 2015 – 6:52 am

Why would they do that? Politics. Listening might have caused issues with Obama’s re-election

(CNN) President Barack Obama’s former top military intelligence official said Tuesday that the White House ignored reports prefacing the rise of ISIS in 2011 and 2012 because they did not fit their re-election “narrative.”

“I think that they did not meet a narrative the White House needed. And I’ll be very candid with you, they just didn’t,” retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “The Lead.”

Flynn, who has been critical of both Obama and former President George W. Bush’s handling of the Iraq War and involvement in the Middle East, said that Obama was served poorly by a small circle of advisers who were worried about his re-election prospects at the time.

They were more interested in spinning a fable than protecting US interests and national security. The rise of ISIS coincided with Obama’s failed Iraq, Syria, and Libya policies, among others.

The story they needed to tell, he said, was that pulling troops from Iraq would not leave the region vulnerable to rise of a radical Islamic group like ISIS.

“I think the narrative was that al Qaeda was on the run, and (Osama) bin Laden was dead … they’re dead and these guys are, we’ve beaten them,” Flynn said, but the problem was that despite how many terrorist leaders they killed they “continue to just multiply.”

They were going with the “Queen Bee” theory, whereby if you kill the Queen, Osama, then the hive dies. Unfortunately, Islamic terrorists and their supporters are not bees. More unfortunately, the Obama administration lives in a different world than everyone else, and is more concerned with his optics than actually doing the right thing. Plus, doing the right thing would be hard work, especially regarding foreign policy, and that would get in the way of things that Obama actually cares about. If Obama doesn’t care about an issue, he tries to ignore it, regardless of the importance to the United States.

Consider: if a Republican president acted in this manner regarding ISIS, they’d be blamed for all the violence, rape, and sawing off of heads.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Former Head Of DIA Claims Team Obama Ignorned Rise Of ISIS Intelligence »

Posted in Barry Obama, RoP | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Green Energy Is Part Of The Patriarchy

By William Teach December 1, 2015 – 3:03 pm

Hey, don’t blame me, I am not the one who said it

From the article

In the fight to stop climate change, many people paint carbon-neutral energy as the solution to saving the planet. But what happens when “green” energy projects threaten the existence of people, animals, and entire ecosystems living on it? Is “green” energy really the solution when it comes at such a cost? As Brazil invests heavily in hydroelectric energy projects in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while still growing its economy, the country’s indigenous movement is fighting to answer this very question.

What follows is a lot of complaining about the dam. I thought greenie weenie Warmists loved renewables? Oh, right, only in theory, not practice

When this happens, indigenous and marginalized women will suffer the most. We’ve seen it happen around the world: when communities are threatened by displacement, climate disaster, or pollution, it falls on women to do extra care work, to find food, fuel, and water when it’s scarce, and to hold the community together in the face of danger and instability.

Really, it seems that Lefties will always find some way to kill in practice what they support in theory.

A 37 percent emissions reduction is not an acceptable price for destroying ecosystems, habitats, and communities. There is nothing green, clean, or just about energy produced by treating people as collateral damage.

Sadly, this is about the same for most alternatives at this time. Strange that it takes the War On Womens to get feminists to shriek.

Though, in all honesty, buried within the shrieking are some real issues.

Read: Green Energy Is Part Of The Patriarchy »

Posted in Global Warming, Liberal World | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a beautiful field that would be perfect for a wind farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Liberty Zone, with a post saying “What if?”

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Email Dump: Hillary Looked Fabulous During Benghazi Hearing

By William Teach December 1, 2015 – 9:16 am

Yet another email dump of Hillary’s emails highlights a few ugly things

(Fox News) As the number of classified Hillary Clinton emails grew to nearly 1,000, they also reveal how freely she and her staff shared information on the Benghazi attacks including confirming the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens – and even celebrating her controversial hearing appearance where she asked, “what difference, at this point, does it make” what led to the attacks.

The batch contained 328 emails deemed to have classified information. According to the State Department, that brings the total number with classified information to 999.

That alone drew outrage from Republicans, with the RNC saying the sheer number of emails with classified material “underscores the degree to which Hillary Clinton jeopardized our national security and has tried to mislead the American people.”

Obeying national security laws is for the little people. Hey, and weren’t we told that she never discussed national security issues, just yoga and wedding stuff?

During and after the hearing, aides forwarded Clinton congratulatory messages.

“I’m being flooded with emails about how you rocked,” deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin wrote. “And you looked fabulous.” One supporter wrote a message with the subject line: “twitterverse abuzz with Hillary-kvelling,” using the Yiddish word for gushing praise.

That was the hearing which she infamously stated “what difference, at this point, does it make?”, in regards to the murder of 4 Americans by Islamists on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, an area which had become increasingly dangerous from Islamic radicals thanks to taking out Qaddafi and leaving Libya in turmoil by her and the Obama administration. But, hey, she looked fabulous! Unlike the blood stained walls in Libya.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods were unavailable for comment

Read: Email Dump: Hillary Looked Fabulous During Benghazi Hearing »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Man With Outsized Carbon Footprint Says Paris Is A Turning Point In Fighting ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach December 1, 2015 – 7:19 am

Mr. Obama’s carbon footprint was once reckoned to be 44,000 metric tons a year. Compare that to the average for Americans of around 19mt a year. The global average is around 3mt. His Earth Day flight to Florida put out more “carbon pollution” than 17 cars driving for a year. This is a man who will take a cross country flight on a jumbo jet, accompanied by a backup jumbo jet and several fighter jets, followed by a large fossil fueled convoy of SUVs while he rides in a low MPG limo, all for a brief official appearance followed by multiple fundraisers, and maybe golf.

He’s now in Paris (fossil fueled flights and SUV convoys), along with most world leaders and 40,000 other people, a goodly chunk who took fossil fueled travel methods. How many private jets were flown? A lot, we can easily assume. Pictures and videos show tons of attendees walking around with world killing plastic water bottles. The carbon footprint of the Paris COP21 is estimated at 300,000 metric tons. So, of course, we get this kind of silliness from Obama

(Washington Post) President Obama joined leaders from 150 nations on Monday in pledging action against climate change, kicking off a historic two-week gathering that Obama called a “turning point” in the battle against one of humanity’s gravest threats.

If only they cared about walking the talk. And real environmental issues. Heck, real issues, like ISIS and radical Islam.

Obama, speaking a few miles from the site of the Nov. 13 terrorist attack in the French capital, called for urgent action against a challenge that he suggested was greater even than the fight against terrorism.

“The growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other,” Obama said in a speech at the Le Bourget conference center in Paris’s industrial outskirts. “What should give us hope that this is a turning point, that this is the moment we finally determined we would save our planet.”

Once again, let me point out that ‘climate change’ tends to come in last or next to last when placed against virtually every other real world issue.

Obama said that “the United States not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.” But he stressed that all nations must act “right now.”

A man who lives a massive 1%er 1st World lifestyle made possible by the advancements of the United States, and is supposedly the President, loves to smear his own country.

“We have broken the old arguments for inaction,” Obama said at the plenary session Monday. “We have proved that strong economic growth and stable investment no longer have to conflict with one another.”

Except, what we have really seen is that economies stagnate when they are pushing hard to “stop climate change”. Which is why many European nations are scaling back their Hotcoldwetdry plans. We also see unintended consequences, like increased deforestation as Europeans attempt to find affordable methods to provide power, especially when the harsh winters prevalent the last 7 years occur.

At the end of the day, this is all about redistribution of wealth, mostly from the average taxpayer, while giving government more power over citizen lives. The cost of living increases, along with the increased taxes, won’t affect rich 1%ers like Obama. It’s surprising that the Left, always whining about income inequality, Wall Street, big companies, etc, fail to notice that the solutions tend to help the same people and companies they are against, while hurting the middle and lower classes.

Read: Man With Outsized Carbon Footprint Says Paris Is A Turning Point In Fighting ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barry Obama, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Washington Post: The Common Thread In Gun Violence Is Guns!

By William Teach December 1, 2015 – 6:50 am

The hell you say! The Washington Post Editorial Board is vexed by all the gun violence caused by guns. Not people, of course. They generally aren’t the problem. The guns just leap into their hands and lead the person under hypnosis, and pull their own triggers. This is probably one of the sillier, more meaningless anti-gun screeds, which is long on outrage (but only for certain shootings) and short on offering solutions

The common thread in America’s unacceptable carnage: Access to guns

THE 57-year-old man charged in the murderous shooting spree at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado allegedly made remarks to police about “no more baby parts.” That has led some to speculate that antiabortion rhetoric sparked the rampage. The suspect’s history of aberrant behavior prompted others to theorize that mental illness was the culprit. In the early stages of the investigation, we don’t know what, if any, role was played by either of these factors. In the meantime it is worth restating the obvious: The one factor common to every terrible case of gun violence is access to guns.

Got that? The access to guns is more important than someone being upset over Planned Parenthood slaughtering babies and him having mental issues, both of which we have no idea whether they were responsible. But guns!!!!!

So far this year, according to news reports collected by a Reddit community, there have been at least 351 mass shootings, or more than one a day. Those account for just a small part of the lives lost or damaged by gun violence. They don’t include, for example, in recent weeks the 6-year-old Georgia girl who apparently shot herself in the head after finding a loaded gun tucked in a couch, or the Ohio State University employee who shot himself in a campus art gallery, or the Tennessee woman murdered by her husband, who then killed himself.

The interesting part is that the WPEB never seems concerned about Black on Black violence, such as

FACT 3. Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks committed half of homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years.

Why is it that America’s leading news sources, the majority of which are Democratic Party leaning, ignore the problem in the Black community, which has lots and lots of gun violence, which occurs primarily in Democratic Party run cities, like Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore? They always seem super concerned if there is a white person involved, but, otherwise, they couldn’t care less.

Nearly 300 people are shot every day in the United States in murders, assaults, attempted and successful suicides and unintentional shootings. The numbers are so appalling that they become numbing. Easy access to guns is a major threat to U.S. public health. It is also such a political challenge that the natural inclination is to move on to other topics: mental-health care, incendiary rhetoric, violent video games. We do not dismiss the importance of any of those. But we also believe the country should not lose focus on what makes us unique in the world: the senseless availability of, as President Obama referred to them, “weapons of war.”

Blaming mental health care, which Democrats have killed over the years. Blaming Free Speech. Except when it is Democrats with the incendiary rhetoric. Violent video games? Noting a comment at the article

Liberal media/film industry: “No, we’re not going to censor the gratuitous violence in our films, because we can’t be responsible for mentally unstable viewers who might emulate such actions.”
Liberal media/film industry: “Conservative politicians and gun rights advocates need to curb their rhetoric, because it’s inciting gun violence and it’s outrageous.”

How about all the nasty rhetoric aimed at Republicans, Israel, global warming skeptics, and conservatives in the opinion pages of papers like the Washington Post? Do they count?

The answers, as Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” aren’t easy or obvious, but he is right to demand a lot more thinking about issues associated with guns. “You know, “ he said, “I’m not willing to say, ‘Well, we will just have to sit back and accept this as a cost of freedom.’ ” The daily carnage cannot be acceptable.

And that’s it. They offer no ideas. Just outrage. Forgetting that violent crime has gone done over the past 40 years, while gun ownership has gone way up.

If only the WPEB would get half as upset over things like ISIS and Islamist violence.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: The Common Thread In Gun Violence Is Guns! »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Wonky Media | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Oklahoma Wesleyan U. President Tells Special Snowflakes To Grow Up

By William Teach November 30, 2015 – 4:56 pm

Dr. Everett Piper lays the smackdown on those suffering from Special Snowflake Syndrome (via Twitchy)

This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!

This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears that this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.

I’m not making this up. Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic. Any time their feelings are hurt, they are the victims. Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them “feel bad” about themselves, is a “hater,” a “bigot,” an “oppressor,” and a “victimizer.”

I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization.

So here’s my advice:

If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.

If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.

At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict. We believe the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don’t believe that you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don’t issue “trigger warnings” before altar calls.

Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that’s wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that’s wrong with them. This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up.

This is not a day care. This is a university!

Nothing else to say but bravo!

Those suffering from SSS should listen, because, otherwise, when they have to live in the real world, things are not going to be to their liking, and most couldn’t care less about their SSS, and do not provide safe spaces and trigger warnings.

Read: Oklahoma Wesleyan U. President Tells Special Snowflakes To Grow Up »

Posted in Awesome | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 30, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is evil ice cream that comes from evil greenhouse gas cows that makes it so hot ice cream melts, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Rhymes With Right, with a post on the difference between liberals and conservatives on violent political activity.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Climate Change Is Form Of Terror!!!!!!!!

By William Teach November 30, 2015 – 11:58 am

Or something. Remember when CNN used to be a news organization? This comes from the fever swamp Warmist mind of John Sutter

Climate change is a form of terror

(Lots of idiocy to start)

We humans, however, are excellent at ignoring long-term global problems — like climate change. We focus on what’s right in front of us. The recent terror attacks are tragic, and many lives will never be the same because of them. They should not be minimized.

But climate change is another form of terror — and it’s one we’re wreaking on ourselves.

Well, that’s his entire argument. Seriously. No more. And Everyone Else needs to be forced to give up their fossil fueled 1st World lives and bow the will of their political masters and Big Government to atone for…something.

What was the point of the big scaremongering headline? Most likely to say that ‘climate change’ is scarier than actual terrorists who slowly saw people’s heads off and blow up pregnant women and children in pizza places, scarier than jihadis flying planes into buildings. Mostly because these people are nuts.

Read: Climate Change Is Form Of Terror!!!!!!!! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove