Brilliant comedy, from someone unafraid to speak his mind about the climate change hoax, Greta Thunberg, transgenderism, and our political class.
I’m on the road for at least a few hours today, so blogging will be light. However, I thought I’d leave you with a little red meat to start an Open Thread.
@RealSaavedra AOC clearly wants to say “you’re crazy,” but is hampered by two things: (a) she created this crazy and (b) if you make a sacrament of abortion up to and after the moment of birth, you really can’t take a stand against eating babies. #EatTheBabies https://t.co/moEBT1e1xT
— Bookwormroom (@Bookwormroom) October 4, 2019
I know it’s counter-intuitive, but global warming might turn America’s vast southern desert into useful arable land.
When driving through the deserts of New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California, my educated brain knows that those barren looking lands are, in fact, teeming with life. Plants that look ugly and scrubby to me provide provide shelter and sustenance to an abundance of small mammals, reptiles, birds, and insects.
Still, the American desert is not a land that provides much sustenance to humans. Driving through it, I made sure to be stocked up on water and never let my gas tank drop much below half full. I wanted some barrier against even the the thought of my car breaking down out there in the 104 degree heat.
If one shuts out the educated part of ones brain while driving down I-40, the one that says there is life out there, all that one sees is hundreds and hundreds of miles of . . . nothing. There’s very little human habitation (hence my always-semi-full gas tank), livestock are a rarity, and I couldn’t see anything that looked remotely like food crops. It’s just hot, dusty, and hostile. [Read more…]
I don’t doubt that our National Parks are in need of repair, but some of them might find extra funds if they’d stop their climate change virtue signaling.
The Daily Caller reports that America’s National Parks are in a state of extreme disrepair:
The most iconic U.S. national parks need billions of dollars in maintenance to repair crumbling roads, dilapidated buildings, rundown campsites and leaky pipelines, according to experts and federal government figures.
Nearly $12 billion is needed to repair infrastructure, mostly crumbling roads, at 419 park units managed by the National Park Service (NPS). The maintenance backlog grew $313 million in 2018 alone, federal figures state.
“It’s a problem that cannot continue indefinitely,” John Garder, a senior director at the National Parks Conservation Association, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview.
The Interior Department has been grappling with its growing deferred maintenance backlog for years even as millions of people visit national parks every year. Park advocates worry the growing need for repairs could not only ruin a visitor’s experience but also damage natural habitats.
I’m not going to argue with that assessment, for I’m perfectly ready to believe that the federal government, whether through bureaucratic mismanagement, corruption, or actual lack of funds (perhaps partly due to being spread too thin thanks to Obama-era land grabs) has fallen down on the job of maintaining America’s National Parks. I wonder, though, if one of the funding problems might be misplaced priorities because the parks are staffed and managed by people who have bought wholesale into the whole climate change ideology.
Item One for my off-the-cuff theory is a story that made the rounds just last week: Glacier National Park had signs telling people to enjoy the glaciers while they could because anthropogenic climate change meant that they’d vanish by 2020. As with all climate change doom-and-gloom predictions, the signs were wrong and needed to be changed: [Read more…]
The late Michael Crichton figured out 15 years ago that the climate change juggernaut is a Leftist faith, intended to rework the economy, not true science.
With virtually unlimited money and power at stake, the watermelons (green outside, red inside) are pushing harder than ever to put the U.S. on a path to green Nirvana, where ostensible mitigation of anthropogenic climate change justifies every conceivable regulation, law, and tax, as well as the reordering of our economy and Constitution.
Before starting up this post, some facts many of you might not know. The US has been reducing carbon emissions for years, more so than any other country. In 2017, we produced less carbon than we did in 2005. Indeed, we produced 40,000,000 metric tonnes of CO2 less than we did even in 2016. We accomplished that without regulation — for all those Obama regs were rolled back by 2017 — and without implementing authoritarian government. Yet you will hear no progressive acknowledge those facts in any of the numerous links below. Those are inconvenient facts, and the climate change push is faith based.
The average American is not very concerned with the climate change issue. According to NBC, climate change did not even register as a concern among voters in 2018. But understand that the climate change movement is a juggernaut. It is the single most important issue for progressive left politicians, both foreign and domestic, and their cronies in the private sector, public sector, and academia, all of whom stand to benefit beyond the imagining from the most lucrative scam in history.
Within the past two weeks, once and future Speaker of the House, Crazy Nancy, announced that House Democrats will establish a “Select Committee on the Climate Crisis” as soon as they are seated as the majority. The NYT is running near daily editorials on climate change as the world’s most pressing issue, claiming Trump is evil and everyone who does not embrace the Paris Accords, a carbon tax, and every other thing the left demands to save us from climate-ageddon is mentally and morally defective. On his latest edition of Meet The Press, NBC’s Chuck Todd devoted the entire hour-long show to anthropogenic climate change, though the panel ONLY included those pushing the canard and demanding government action. As justification for the completely stacked panel, Todd stated: [Read more…]
Even as Paris burns, America’s media and other Democrat establishments demand that America institute the socialist policies that are destroying Europe.
Paris burns — and the people call for Trump. The mainstream media truly believes in global leadership. Trump’s desire to be America’s, rather than following in his predecessor’s footsteps as a Left wing world leader, is seen as Exhibit A in indictment alleging that Trump is evil, racist, Hitler-esque, etc.
Those national leaders that the media exalts are the ones who put the world ahead of their nations. They demand a world without borders, no matter the profound damage roving immigrants from nightmare countries inflict on their own citizens. In this regard, it’s important to understand that most of these countries did not become nightmares because an evil strong man, along the lines of Hitler, Maduro, or Erdogan is destroying the civilized people in his nation. Instead, these are nightmare nations because of national values that the roving immigrants, like locusts, bring with them to their new locations.
The exalted global leaders are also the ones who have bought completely into the whole Climate Change mantra. This holds that mankind in the last few years has become more powerful than the earth, the sun, and the whole universe combined. Certainly, humans have shown that they have the power to alter and damage their local environment. There is no reliable evidence, though, that they can change the earth’s climate.
As I’ve taken to arguing, if humans really are warming the planet, we should be incredibly grateful. Because I’m not a Leftist, my knowledge of history goes back millennia, rather than years or (sometimes) merely weeks or even days. That’s why I know that humans thrive when the earth warms and they die when it cools. When it warms, there’s more arable land and more rain, which equals more food. If CO2 is increasing, that’s great too, because the food we eat needs it.
However, when the earth cools, whether because of (probably sun-controlled) climate change or because of dirty volcanoes that block out the sun, people die. Keep that last point in mind when you hear from those “scientists” who want to block the sun’s rays: [Read more…]
The eugenics debate from a century ago bears striking similarities to the climate change debate today, while Leftists try to bring racism to old statuary.
I’ve actually been doing paid legal work all day long, with a short deadline, which makes blogging difficult if not impossible. Nevertheless, I wanted to raise two quick points that impinged on my consciousness in the past few days.
Eugenics and climate change. The first point comes about because over the past couple of nights I watched a fairly good PBS documentary about eugenics. While it didn’t mention Margaret Sanger’s racism, it did touch upon a lot of other interesting points about the eugenic craze in America:
- The way in which someone took a scientific theory (evolution) and ran with it;
- “Scientific” research that started with conclusions and forced the data;
- Big money;
- The buy-in of the American elite in the name of expertise, science, and self-improvement;
- The panic about a nation that could be destroyed by “defective” human beings, whether because of birth defects, substance abuse, or inferior race;
- The doubling down as doubt crept in amongst serious researchers; and
- The movement’s eventual failure when it reached its inevitable and extreme conclusion with the Nazis.
If those factors remind you of something, then I’ve successfully made my point, which is that the whole eugenics foofaraw is like a template for climate change hysteria. Just think about the fact that the climate change craze:
- Took a scientific theory and ran with it;
- Larded the theory with dubious “science” towards a predetermined conclusion;
- Got big money;
- Got the buy-in of a hysterical elite in thrall to expertise, science, and self-improvement;
- Turned into an eschatalogical, Manichean panic to prevent the end of the world;
- Saw its true believers double down in the face of opposing evidence; and
- (Finally) seems to be falling under its own weight as it becomes clear to ordinary people that it has no substance and is being used for bad ends (in the case of climate change, to enrich hucksters and impoverish ordinary people around the globe).
A PBS Nova show, meant to promote solar energy through solar flight, did nothing more than reinforce the fact that computer-modeled climate change is hooey.
If you asked me, I would say that the show devoted two hours documenting how highly educated European true believers invested tens of thousands of hours and possibly millions of gallons of fossil fuel into inventing and flying a solar-powered plane that (1) travels at 45 miles an hour, (2) can do night flights only under optimal — and unpredictable — circumstances, and (3) is so fragile rain can break every part of it.
At the end of the day, I would have this as my conclusion about the show: It’s as if these European intellectual elites decided to time travel to Kitty Hawk in 1903, turn to the Wright Brothers, and say “Hold my beer!”
Nova has a less cynical take:
On March 9, 2015, Solar Impulse II took off from Abu Dhabi on one of the greatest aviation adventures of our time: the first solar-powered flight around the world. Together with a team of brilliant engineers, two visionary pilots—Bertrand Piccard and André Borschberg—designed and built Solar Impulse from scratch, even though top airplane manufacturers told them it would be “impossible to control.” To pull it off, they had to re-invent everything, from innovative solar cells and batteries to massive carbon-fiber wings. Despite all their efforts, the performance of the plane was balanced on a knife-edge, demanding near-perfect weather conditions and hour after hour of vigilant, skillful piloting. The longest nonstop leg, from Japan to Hawaii, lasted five days and set a new world solo flight record. NOVA captures an insider’s view of the Solar Impulse pilots and ground team as they experience moments of hair-raising crisis, remarkable endurance, and ingenious problem-solving.
The only part of the show I really enjoyed was the fact that it had a bald “Captain” Piccard boldly going where no man has gone before. Other than that, it dragged. We saw how the plane couldn’t do this and it couldn’t do that, and it couldn’t fly here and it couldn’t land there — all at 45 miles per hour. And we saw how, everywhere the plane wended its non-polluting ways, dozens of team members trailed in its wake, hauling with them vast amounts of equipment — all the old-fashioned way, relying on fossil fuels.
I finally reached maximum boredom when the plane was parked in China, preparing to make a trans-Pacific flight to Hawaii — something that would take five days of non-stop flying. This meant, of course, that the plane had to store enough solar power during the day to create energy to fly at night, something it could only do right on the cusp of the summer solstice. Five minutes less of daylight, and it was questionable whether the plane would be able to last the night. [Read more…]
Hurricanes are normal, but Trump Derangement Syndrome obscures that fact. Of course, those subject to TDS are deranged in other ways as well. Just look….
Before I get to the meat of this post — or, because it’s a round-up, the various meats of this post — I want to remind everyone that America has always been subject to ferocious hurricanes. They just seem worse today because we have more population in a hurricane’s path, especially when it’s an Irma-like hurricane, and because we have a 24 hour media that makes everything seem local.
In other ways, though, we’re better off when faced with hurricanes because we can prepare. In 1900, Galveston, Texas, residents did not see their Cat 4 hurricane coming. It killed 6,000 – 12,000 people, making it the deadliest natural disaster in American history. For a list of other major hurricanes in the last 400 years, the bulk of which predate “climate change” and struck out-of-the-blue, go here. You’ll see that America was especially hard hit in the 1700s, long before CO2 was an issue.
Obviously, I don’t mean to downplay our two latest hurricanes, Harvey and Irma, both of which are or will be responsible for staggering property damage and, always, the loss of too many lives. I just want to amp down the usual climate change hysteria that’s accompanying this latest display of Nature’s normal.
And with that, let me turn my attention to all the other interesting things I’ve gathered, many of which reflect poorly on those most deeply lost to TDS.
Hillary admits her incompetence. Hillary has been on the warpath with her new book, blaming everything and everybody for her loss. She’s also admitted that she was incapable of speech on election eve because she was so devastated and that it was male advisers who caused her to react less strongly to both Trump and Bernie than she thinks in retrospect that she ought to have done. (Oh, and Trump “creeped” her out.)
So Hillary has just admitted that she’s incompetent in a crisis and incapable of standing up to men. Most of Hillary’s opponents at home and abroad would have been men, men like Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, or Bashir al-Assad. Her latest book is just another reminder that we dodged a serious bullet when Trump won.
Europe’s Muslim future. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, sees which way the wind is blowing and he understands that, not only is Eurabia fast approaching, but that Western Europe leaders are hastening its inevitability:
Europe’s leaders seem to have neither the will nor the means to oppose the incoming waves of millions of Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East. They know that terrorists are hiding among the migrants, but still do not vet them. Instead, they resort to subterfuges and lies. They create “deradicalization” programs that do not work: the “radicals,” it seems, do not want to be “deradicalized.”
Europe’s leaders try to define “radicalization” as a symptom of “mental illness”; they consider asking psychiatrists to solve the mess. Then, they talk about creating a “European Islam“, totally different from the Islam elsewhere on Earth. They take on haughty postures to create the illusion of moral superiority, as Ada Colau and Carles Puigdemont did in Barcelona: they say they have high principles; that Barcelona will remain “open” to immigrants. Angela Merkel refuses to face the consequences of her policy to import countless migrants. She chastises countries in Central Europe that refuse to adopt her policies.
European leaders can see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam. They try to anesthetize non-Muslim populations with dreams about an idyllic future that will never exist. They say that Europe will have to learn to live with terrorism, that there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Pat Condell is another prophet who is being ignored:
Meanwhile, Britain prepares its citizens for dhimmitude. Several of my gay Leftist Facebook friends proudly posted a WaPo op-ed announcing that all the grim prophecies preceding legalizing gay marriage failed to come true. It is true that heterosexual marriage is cratering at pretty much the same rate as before, so one can’t say that same-sex marriage killed it. The article also essentially claims that America is better than ever because Christian bakers are being put out of business.
It’s that last point, of course, that’s the giveaway about the real target of gay marriage. Gay marriage, as I’ve said over and over, was never about competing with straight marriage and it was unlikely to affect straight marriage. What it was about was undercutting traditional values, especially if those values came from the church. Kill the traditional church (and the synagogue) and you kill the West. It’s heart goes out of it.
(Before I go further, let me say again, that I have no trouble whatsoever with same-sex civil unions. If states want to legalize same sex partnerships, that’s fine with me. I support people who enter into stable relationships. It’s the way the whole issue was framed as gay “marriage” that disturbs me deeply. Doing that made these unions the basis for a concerted attack against traditional Western values as a whole.)
If you really want to see where gay marriage leads, check out this Australian Spectator article detailing the way in which gay marriage has been used to attack core Western values, not to mention to destroy the integrity of our biological selves. I’ll focus on the gender and children sections, but you should read the whole thing: [Read more…]
The Leftist insanity never stops, whether it’s “black white supremacists” or the effect of climate change on anything and everything. Phew!
I’ve been taking care of family matters, so I haven’t had the chance to read anything today, let alone write anything. Thankfully, Wolf Howling sent me a fascinating email summing up his take on the day. Here’s what he wrote:
Blacks who don’t toe the line are inevitably savaged — by the radicalized blacks — as Uncle Toms, but The Root (run by Harvard victim studies prof Henry Louis Gates Jr.) has taken it a step further, labeling Charles Barkley of all people a white supremacist. The article is short . . . and deserves a read:
That is identity politics taken to the extreme. It’s also something that Dave Chappelle ridiculed years ago (see videos at the bottom of this post).
Even as evidence builds that climate change is a scam, hyper-educated Marin spends money to prevent it and starts a major shakedown against oil companies.
Scott Adams keeps saying America has two different movies playing, one that progressives watch and the other that conservatives watch. In the progressive movie, proliferating CO2 in the atmosphere is turning the earth into a giant sweat box from which no one will escape alive. Seas will rise and deserts proliferate. Ninety-seven percent of all scientists agree that, unless we turn our economy over to the United Nations, we’re doomed. Doomed, do you hear?!
In this particular movie, the fact that one prediction after another has consistently failed for the past twenty years is irrelevant. Too many hurricanes? Too few hurricanes? Doesn’t matter. Now that we’ve withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords, the end is near no matter what.
Conservatives have a somewhat different notion of things. While the progressives watch a climate horror movie, conservatives focus on documentaries with real news, not fake. To that end, they keep harking back to stupid little things like actual data and (sadly) equally actual scientific fraud. For example, conservatives like to point out that — per a peer-reviewed study conducted by exceptionally qualified scientists — government temperature adjustments have been, in a word, fraudulent (my word, not theirs, probably because they don’t want Michael Mann to sue them):
“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.
In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
Conservatives also make much of the fact that the claim that 97% of all scientists support global warming is also totally bogus:
In 2013, Australian blogger John Cook reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011, concluding that 97 percent of the authors who stated their position on the subject believed that human activity was responsible for some warming.
- However, when University of Delaware geography professor David Legates reviewed Cook’s papers, he found that only 41 of them (0.3 percent of all of the abstracts, and just 1 percent of those that expressed an opinion) believed human activity was causing most current warming.
On the other hand, write Bast and Spencer, the Petition Project — a group of physicists and physical chemists in California — has collected more than 31,000 signatures from scientists agreeing that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of…carbon dioxide…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.”
Another “inconvenient truth” conservatives keep harking back to is that, as even the most fraudulen… er, most fierce climate change advocates have had to admit, there has been no warming for the entirety of the 21st century (to date, of course):
The ‘Pause’ in global warming is real and the computer models predicting dramatically increased temperatures have failed.
This is the shocking admission of a paper published this week in Nature Geoscience. It’s shocking because the paper’s lead author is none other than Ben Santer – one of the more vociferous and energetic alarmists exposed in the Climategate emails.
According to the paper’s abstract:
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.
We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
Translation: the real-world temperature increases were much smaller than our spiffy, expensive computer models predicted.
Ice is not vanishing, polar bears are not vanishing, Himalayan glaciers are not vanishing, and our withdrawal from the Paris Accords will change nothing. As to that last point, the reality is that the proper name for the Accords really ought to have been the “Destroy the American Economy Accords” because that was the unspoken goal behind Obama’s unconstitutional treaty. While other CO2-producing nations were essentially unhindered when it came to producing greenhouse gases, Obama bound American industry hand and foot and, at the same time, handed over vast chunks of American wealth to fund other countries’ expanding greenhouse-producing efforts. [Read more…]
Some faiths really are better — I accept those that uplift & improve (e.g., Christianity); I reject those that control & destroy (e.g., Climate Change).
On my recent trip, I ended up talking to a very bright man who believes unquestioningly that Big Foot (aka Sasquatch) exists — and he doesn’t stop with believing in just one Big Foot in the Pacific Northwest. He believes, instead, that there are vast colonies of these creatures spread throughout North America. According to this man, he personally saw Big Foot’s tracks in the snow once, gigantic deep imprints that were five feet apart and that proved that a giant hominid had headed up the mountainside at a run. He also cites to other people’s anecdotal evidence of run-ins with Big Foot.
When I asked how it is that no sightings have ever been corroborated and why nobody has been able to produce hard evidence of their existence, he had an answer: The United States government is hiding Big Foot colonies with help from the Air Force. If you’re wondering why the government is doing this, the man will tell you that the government is afraid that, because Big Foot colonies are the original indigenous hominids in America, if the government ceased hiding their existence, America would be obligated to return the entire United States to the Sasquatch people.
The fact that the U.S. government has successfully resisted returning America to the Native Americans who were here before Europeans came, did not impress him. When I offered that it was probable that the government would resist Big Foot’s demands for the return of its land, he told me that the risk of losing in a legal battle with Sasquatch was too great. The government had to keep its Big Foot secret.
The Paris Accord was an exceptionally vicious attack that Barack Obama launched against the American economy. Trump saved us from economic Armageddon.
Because of all the other stuff in my life, I’m now on my sixth attempt to get this post written. I did use the interstices of this randomly busy day, though, to read more about the Paris Accord, both about Trump’s decision and about the hysterics from the Left, especially the Hollywood crowd. Based on this reading, I’ve managed to draw the following conclusions:
The Agreement as to the US was and is not binding. That’s because, both because of Constitutional and international law, it was and is a Treaty — that means he needed the approval of 2/3 of Congress, which meant he needed the approval of vast swaths of the American people. Obama, knowing he could not rally either the country or Congress around him, proceeded unilaterally. Speaking facetiously, if it is binding, it’s binding only on Obama (so maybe he should stop with the huge carbon footprint houses, the private planes, and the friends’ yachts).
The Agreement imposed no meaningful constraints whatsoever on non-American parties to the treaty. A friend of mine who is a scientist went looking for raw data about the treaty. Looking at that data, he had this to say:
With all the “world-coming-to-an-end” talk following Trump’s withdrawal of the US from the Paris Accord, I thought it would be good to look at the actual commitments by countries. It was not easy to find, but here it is. The commitments are voluntary, with each country setting its own goals.
A few nuggets are China’s commitment to PEAK its Carbon emissions by 2030, and USA’s commitment to REDUCE its own emissions by 26-28% by 2025(!). The US has peaked around 2000 according to its own submission to the UN, basically handicapping itself relative to China by 30(!) years.
The EU submission is filed under Latvia here. It is seemingly the most ambitious of the bunch (that I reviewed) setting a 40% reduction relative to 1990 levels. However, the EU’s own stats show that in 2014 the EU was already at 22% down from 1990. For the EU to go down to 26% from 2005 levels would mean 20% reduction, more than the US 25%.
In other words, Obama obligated American to make economically deleterious changes, while everyone else gets to go full speed ahead — with each country picking a baseline of its own choosing for the starting point. (Obama, incidentally, also picked a baseline, one that’s very damaging to the US economy. You can just feel the love….)
The Accord does nothing to place a meaningful limit on CO2 emissions. According to the Left, the treaty under optimal circumstances would have resulted in an 0.2% reduction in emissions. That’s a rounding error, not a reduction. Meanwhile, it would have imposed a 6% reduction in the American economy over 20 years. That’s not a rounding error, that’s a disaster.
In other words, what Obama did — unilaterally, without approval from Americans or Congress — was to sign us up for a plan that destroys our economy, while imposing no obligations whatsoever on everyone else. Trump was, as I already said, absolutely right to walk away from it.
Ignore all the screaming. It’s just noise, and stupid noise at that.
The one thing I do recommend is writing a letter to the White House letting the president know that you agree with him. Because of the media shrieks and howls, positive voices will get drowned out. Trump needs to know that those in the trenches, not in elite enclaves, are grateful for his principled stand.
President Trump lived up to his promise to walk from the Paris Climate Accord, and did so with a magnificent speech about economics and sovereignty.
The Paris Accord was a terrible agreement. It was designed to redistribute the wealth of the West — and particularly the U.S. — to the UN and to set the stage for an international legal framework enforcing the fraudulent green agenda. It was the nose under the tent that would, in the long run, consume our nation. Thank you, President Trump, for today taking us out of that obscene agreement.
If you did not see Trump’s speech this afternoon announcing his decision to withdraw our nation from the Paris Accord, this is one well worth watching:
The speech begins at the 1hr 4 min mark and lasts for approximately 45 mins.
Trump justified his decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord by pointing to the long-term “draconian . . . economic and financial burden” the agreement imposed on the U.S. The “onerous energy restrictions” alone would, Trump said, cost America 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.
Several months ago, I wrote an essay on this blog pointing out that the science being used to justify the green agenda was somewhere between problematic at best, fraudulent at worst. And I pointed out that the Paris Accord was the nose under the tent for establishing international legal supremacy as regards all things climate change over our Constitution, for attacking capitalism, for attacking democracy, and to effect a massive transfer of wealth from this country to those UN, academic and governmental elites driving the climate agenda. As I wrote in that essay: [Read more…]
With the Paris Accord gone, is there a greater pleasure than watching the tears and hysteria on the Left as they face their perceived climate doom?
I don’t need to read the New York Times article. I simply adore the picture:
A true leader looks at the lemmings around him as they head for the cliff and yells “Stop.” Bye-bye, lemmings!