Please excuse me if not being a
limp-wristed-lefty-moron prevents me from understanding exactly what it is that
Barry “Almighty’ means when he makes the rather idiotic claim that arriving at
a powerful climate deal in Paris would somehow be an "act of
defiance" against terrorism and would prove that the world stands
undeterred by Islamic State-linked attacks in Europe and beyond. What we have here is nothing more than
corrupt individuals advocating solutions that won’t work, for a problem that
doesn’t exist, using power that they don’t possess.
Barry used his 11 minutes-too-long speech to the
more than 150 ‘world leaders’ in attendance to salute Paris and its people for
"insisting this crucial conference go on" just two weeks after
attacks that killed 130 in the French capital. Crucial to whom, exactly? Perhaps to these ‘world leaders, but to who
else? He said ‘leaders’ had converged
to show their resolve to fight terrorism and uphold their values at the same
time. The laugh line of the speech came
when Barry said, "What greater rejection of those who would tear down our
world than marshaling our best efforts to save it."
Barry's patently idiotic remarks came at the start
of two weeks of what’s being billed as make-or-break negotiations to finalize a
sweeping global agreement to cut carbon emissions and hopefully stave off the
worst effects of climate change. Barry
exhorted leaders here to fight the enemy of cynicism — "the notion we can't
do anything" about the warming of the planet. Barry’s entire speech was nothing more than
one lie told right after another. He made
the claim that 14 of the last 15 years had been the warmest on record, when
actually NO warming has taken place since 1997!
And as is typical for such events as this, was how
it was that Barry proceeded to list all manner of dire threats, from submerged
nations and abandoned cities to ever-worsening flooding and natural disasters. The only thing he left out was an increase in
the number of incidents of spontaneous human combustion. Barry insisted that our grim future "is
one that we have the power to change."
He also urged leaders to "rise to this moment," invoking the
late Martin Luther King Jr.'s observation that there's such a thing as being
too late to a cause. Barry said, "That hour is almost upon us."
As the conference kicked off, Barry announced that
his administration would be pledging $51 million to some global fund the
purpose of which, or so we were told, is to help poorer countries adapt to
climate change. The U.S. contribution joins pledges from Germany, Canada, Italy
and others to total $248 million. Now as
is usually the case, Barry didn't specify from where the U.S. dollars would
come. He has struggled to convince the
Republican-run Congress to fund his costly climate goals, amid concerns from
critics in the U.S. who say his energy plan is nowhere near attainable.
And what made it clear to just what degree this cockamamie
train of thought has now permeated this administration was when at a press
briefing there in Paris, White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben
Rhodes had some difficulty when it came to providing a definitive answer to
reporters when pressed on whether climate change or terrorism poses the greater
risk to the United States. All that he would
say that both threats are serious, but different. He said, “I’m not going to rank them, because
they are different. You have to do several things at once.”
During the press briefing ABC’s Jonathan Karl asked,
“Is it as great a priority as the fight against terrorism?” Rhodes responded, “They are both critically
important, and we have to do both at the same time. They pose different
threats.” He added, “Obviously there is
an immediate threat from terrorism that has to be dealt with to protect the
American people, to protect our allies and partners, and to root out the cancer
of terrorist networks that we see not just in Iraq and Syria but in different
parts of the world.” Rhodes said, “I
think over the long term, clearly we see the potential for climate change to
pose severe risks to the entire world.”
Rhodes said, “We have a threat from nuclear
proliferation, which is why we’ve committed significant effort in getting the
Iran deal so you wouldn’t have the further spread of nuclear weapons. And, you have the threat of climate change,
that again, poses a national security challenge if you are talking about the
mass displacement of people, the erosion of significant parts of territory, the
instability that would come from within countries because of climate change,
and frankly, the effects of extreme whether events in the United States.” He also said that whatever agreement is
reached in the Paris it would not be legally binding.
Rhodes said, “We did not seek a legally binding
agreement for a number of reasons, most importantly is because we believe the
only effective way to combat the threat of climate change is through a truly
global effort, in which countries like China and India and Brazil and Indonesia
are doing their part as well as the countries that were signatories to
Kyoto.” He went on to say, “The fact of
the matter is, if we had set a certain legally binding treaty upon individual
nations, I think we would have lost the capacity to have that truly global
effort.”
Now I know I’m probably not as smart as many of
these supposed ‘world leaders’, but I gotta tell ya, very little of what any of
them are saying, especially Barry “Almighty”, made much sense. I mean, how is that anyone in their right
mind can watch as a Radical Islamist terrorist group in the Middle East goes
about the wholesale slaughtering of thousands of innocent men, women and
children, for no other reason than because they are of a different faith, and
can make the determination that it’s ‘climate change’ which poses the bigger
danger? How absolutely insane is
that?
No comments:
Post a Comment