…in their policy of bigotry.
Obama, let the door hit you on the way out.
H/T to Act for America
…in their policy of bigotry.
Obama, let the door hit you on the way out.
H/T to Act for America
Daily Caller — 2/5/15
The United Nation’s climate chief says that reordering the global economy to fight climate change is the “most difficult” task the international body has ever undertaken.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” Christiana Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, told reporters.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,” Figueres said.
“He[Obama] has not only spoken about his commitment both to his national agenda on climate change, but also to the international process, and has been quite clear in his political leadership,” Figueres said, touting the EPA’s success cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Of course there could be a reason that it is so difficult. (I for one am happy it hasn’t proved easy) But nothing deters them. It is necessary for government to control all markets. Climate Change is code for control and change the economic system under global despots.
And they are complaining it isn’t easy?
Not only do they detest resistance to their agenda, they want to make it impossible. We should start calling it the climate change caliphate.(aka Climate Caliphate)
Monday, 03 Jun 2013 – Newsmax
By Lisa Barron
Secretary of State John Kerry says that the U.S. will sign a controversial United Nations treaty on arms control in spite of bipartisan opposition from lawmakers.
Kerry released a written statement on Monday saying the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2 but which gun rights advocates on Capitol Hill fear could lead to new gun control measures domestically, reports Fox News.
“We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily,” Kerry said, adding that the treaty is “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”
The treaty would reportedly require countries that ratify it to establish national guidelines to govern the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers.
Supporters of gun rights have warned that it could be used as the basis for more gun control measures in the U.S.
Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to President Barack Obama and Kerry calling on them to reject the measure.
“We strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms owners, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty,” they wrote.
H/T to Dave for the article
Just ignore the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. It still needs a two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify it. But Kerry pays no attention to that, he now speaks for the supreme King so he is very confident. Is he looking into Benghazigate and the arms running under the table? You can doubt that. Maybe that wind surfing went to his head.
Warns women, drug users, transgender men vulnerable to ‘health-care abuse’
Denying a woman access to an otherwise legal abortion is “tantamount to torture,” claims a designated United Nations expert in an official report to the international body.
What’s more, the expert asserts, banning all abortions – including in the case of rape – may be “torture” too, whether the bans are legally passed or not.
Mendez lists as health-care “tortures” a host of “reproductive rights violations,” including forced sterilization, female genital mutilation and “denial of legally available health services such as abortion and post-abortion care.”
This really defies reason. To not do abortions is torture. Yes they said it. And not doing abortions is equivalent to other torture, including genital mutilations and sterilization. But why don’t they just say child bearing or having a baby is torture?
BY: Adam Kredo – Freebeacon.com
November 29, 2012 5:00 am
The United Nations is poised to officially recognize the state of Palestine, an unprecedented international endorsement that would enable the Palestinians to prosecute Israeli officials for what the Palestinians claim are war crimes.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is set today to present the U.N.’s General Assembly (G.A.) with a resolution that would enhance the Palestinians’ official status from “observers” to “non-member observer status,” a designation that would allow the so-called state of Palestine to launch formal complaints against Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other U.N legal bodies. […]
Right on cue. Pallywood does UN
I think the word CimateGate fits their drumbeat agenda, and it continues.
Buzz words they use are almost comical. Sometimes one has to remember that they are the left’s words and not ones the right has strapped around their alarmist necks.
Climate aid (love that one)
Climate aid activists
Green Cimate Fund
“fast start” climate financing
And now, drumroll, for their latest creation:
Climate “fiscal cliff” — We are are heading for a Climate fiscal cliff — look out eagles and cliff dwellers! Now they are adapting the language from the debt crisis to globul warming, and hijacking them to point toward their undebatable issue. More to follow. So they’ll say that you cannot address the fiscal problems without addressing Climate Change.
One quote here is not too much:
“A recent projection by the World Bank showed temperatures are on track to increase by up to 4 degrees C (7.2 F) this century, compared with pre-industrial times, overshooting the 2-degree target on which the U.N. talks are based.”
Its bad enough with education the way it is with its problems, but I’m convinced now more than ever that we have to start teaching kids how to read “green”. I mean how to read through the language the left uses by applying critical thinking skills and logic. In the future they will have to know the techniques of propaganda and spot the fallacies in the language of ‘big-gov green’ (a dialect all its own) or enviro-mentalists, just to protect themselves from it.
The Bible warned of worshipping creation over the Creator. They turned the words nature’s God into Nature is god.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
If the rhetoric is not enough, Obama has EPA’s gun loaded and aimed at us with a regulation apocolypse. The Examiner reported before the election Obama had EPA hastily prepariing to roll out the regs at the end of November, and if he won they would continue their agenda. That’s now a given. And this is only the tip of the iceberg:
“More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700
What does it say when the administration put so much effort and resources into it? All that new regulation on business and of course GE will be exempt. (surprise!)
Obama has made sure that the EPA will institute mandates even if he has to overreach the executive branch’s power, since, after all, “we can’t wait” for the dictator to do things legally.
If the rhetoric doesn’t get you, the regulations will.
Maybe Biden had a real point, like that Clint Eastwood skit with the “empty chair” for Obama. And what might that be?
Well, he laughed through most of the debate weaving in and out of foreign policy flames. Maybe that is how they’ve come to view their policy of nuttiness too? At least he can have a laugh over it.
I guess that might be apropos considering the chaotic foreign policy. And then Panetta claimed recent attacks in Afghanistan were the Taliban’s “last gasp” When it comes to numbers in the economy at home or Obama’s dismal record – or lack of one – we’ve come to expect spin and distortions. But now they are spinning and lying about foreign policy too, which is supposed to be their forte’.
Obama said the Benghazi terrorist attack was a “bump in the road” (I wonder if it was a speed bump… along the highway on their victory tour?) Then their first response to the attack was blame a video, or the guy who made it, and protests. They continue to deny facts about what happened in Libya.
So in hindsight leave it to Joe to pass it off and laugh about any idea of being accountable for the consequences of their policies. Biden called criticisms a bunch of “stuff”.
He said as they learned more facts about the incident they changed their assessment. But the state department said it was never pushing that video excuse. Well, funny no one could stop Obama from riding the video excuse into the ground. He went to the UN to mention the video seven times. Then they spent 70K dollars on an ad about the video.
Now Carney is making it clear that the issues involving security at embassies are handled at the State Department. Are they getting ready to throw Hillary under the bus? Maybe Biden had a more personal reason for laughing so much.
Say it ain’t so, Joe
A little rebuke of Obama’s speech, and part rant. He gave his speech to the beloved UN. Well, la di da! But it could be boiled down to this: he mentioned the movie how many times and mentioned terrorism how many times?
It only shows he is about as disconnected from reality as anyone can be. It was another lecture like the many others before it – shallow and pretty meaningless. If one has to give an apologetic defense of freedom of speech, which he has been doing, then he pretty much has missed the point.
When it comes to exercising free speech, he was not only a sleep at the switch, he was turning it off. The same can be said for religious freedom here. He is actively working to undermine them with the all-powerful state. State power and control is always a great substitute for freedom. Now he tells other regimes to suck it up.
Trying to invoke Gandhi, he said “intolerance itself is a form of violence”. Great rhetoric which must mean that Obama is the most violent regime we’ve had, since he is overwhelmingly intolerant of our freedom. Intolerant of anything or anyone who opposes him.
The real point is that he mentioned terrorists once(i.e. “terrorist groups”), and he mentioned the movie (video) 7 times. I guess that expresses his tolerance for terrorism vs. his intolerance for the movie. The latter is protected free speech, the former is not.
I guess that word terrorist is rejected by the teleprompter. He should have that looked at. But it is completely compatible with newspeak. Ingsoc can continue on with his help.
The always entertaining Art Carney had forecasted about his UN speech:
Carney said Obama would address the recent protests that left four Americans dead and once again criticize the U.S.-made anti-Islam video blamed for inflaming tensions, while rejecting the violent response. The president, Carney said, is also expected to warn that the United States will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. – The Hill
So he addressed it, but protests did not leave 4 Americans dead. And he managed to do it without using the word terrorism. Considering that even Carney had repeatedly said it was “self-evident” that it was “terrorism”. I’d say he put ramped up disdain for the video ahead of our security and interests. He calls them killers rather than terrorists. That contrasts with the reality of what they did.
Once again, he repeated his assertions against containment of Iran, and saying he would not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. But this would be to believe he has not been the guy who allowed it this far, or the one who stood in the way of action, or what his top general already telegraphed. So Barry is reaching out for the UNObama. That one seems too busy with campaigning, fundraising, and reelection to pay it much concern. The UNObama will rattle off a speech or a few tough talking points here and there, hoping that suffices. Besides, he can talk a lot better about it if he should lose.
So believing anything he says should require the willing suspension of disbelief. And he refuses to meet with leaders like Netanyahu, for fear of hurting his reelection chances.
By Douglas J. Hagmann & Joe Hagmann
10 August 2012:
We’re seasoned investigators, so we have an inherent desire to dig for the truth. Experience and common sense has shown us that we should never rely on the “accepted” explanation for something when that explanation involves money or politics, and is repeated without challenge by the media. We don’t like liars and thieves, and will expose them whenever possible.
We wanted to get to the bottom of why we’re paying nearly $4.00 per gallon for gasoline at the pump. We wanted to know who or what is responsible for the current high price of gasoline? In addition to being a major economic burden for American families, it is also a national security issue, especially when our petrodollars are subsidizing Islamic terrorist activities.
The task to determine the truth was indeed a daunting one, not only because of the complexity of the issue but due to the facts being tightly wrapped inside various political and globalist agendas, “cooking the books” by using different reporting standards, and various other tangential issues. During our investigation, we even found two energy “analysts” using the same graph to arrive at opposite conclusions.
Nonetheless, we’ve conducted an extensive investigation in an effort to provide our readers with a concise and unbiased report that explains why we are suffering at the gasoline pumps. In the process, we’ve identified several significant lies that we are told to accept as the truth. [/…]
Its chilling that the explanations we keep hearing, repeatedly, do not touch the surface of it. And the sophistry in the blanket explanations do not cut it for many of us, they do not connect the dots. I thought it interesting how important the debasing of our currency has been, under the watchful eye of the fed, on oil and goods in general. But while many of us have been focusing our criticism domestically, isn’t it strange how no one wants to hear that? Yet we should just accept their specious reasons for high prices? This is only another part of the agenda of the powerful. But the powerful doesn’t mean the big evil oil companies. We had big oil companies when the prices were lower, by any comparison, so it is not unreasonable to look elsewhere.
And there are a lot of other explanations.
What should bother anyone is the way our tax dollars subsidize bio-fuels and alternatives while also paying the higher prices at the pump. Every time I see Obama or one of his cronies talking up their “energy policies” I want to scream, “would he ever want to tell us the truth about anything?” Only if it were aligned with his perpetual political agenda — which is basically one big lie anyway.