With a booming economy, a nearly defeated ISIS, a denuclearizing North Korea and successful trade war pressure to make better deals, the Democrats have to have something to attack Trump (and thus, Republicans) with in order to stand a chance at actually taking back the House. So, like with many other attempts, they go with a tried and true measure: blame the Republican president for a major hurricane.
While they’ve tried to do this with Hurricane Florence, since the effects of the hurricane won’t be known until after it’s gone, the Left-wing media is trying to make last year’s hurricane that hit Puerto Rico, Hurricane Maria, Trump’s Katrina.
Despite the fact that Trump’s response was excellent according to even Governor Ricardo Rossello, who said: “The president and the administration, every time we’ve asked them to execute, they’ve executed quickly,” back in September of 2017, and the fact that 20,000 pallets of undistributed bottles of water delivered in the aftermath of the hurricane are sitting on an airport tarmac, the Left is out to destroy Trump with a death toll reaching 3,000.
However, that number is about as real as climate change. How? The way this number came about was through the same way the Left argues that climate change is real: through a computer model.
Allow me to give you the context.
Last month, George Washington University published a new study that estimated “excess mortality” over Hurricane Maria’s impact on Puerto Rico, and estimated, over a six-month period following the hurricane, that there were 2,975 “excess” deaths due to the hurricane.
But the way they came up with this estimate wasn’t through counting bodies, but through calculations in a statistical model subtracting the number of people who would’ve died over that same period of time had the hurricane not happened from the number of people who actually died during that time period.
In other words, they ESTIMATED the death toll STRICTLY THEORETICALLY! As in WITHOUT EVIDENCE!
Now, aside from the fact that multiple news organizations are running with this number as the official death toll for Puerto Rico, the Left is also criticizing Trump over his comments regarding this.
Trump tweeted: “3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000…”
“… This was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible when I was successfully raising Billions of Dollars to help rebuild Puerto Rico. If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them onto the list. Bad politics. I love Puerto Rico!”
Now, it’s only natural for death tolls after disasters and tragedies to go up as time goes on. We’re still seeing people dying because of debris and other factors after 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina’s death toll technically kept going up even years after the storm. However, he is right in challenging these numbers. They are far too big in too short a time-span, particularly considering the great response from the Federal Government in the aftermath of the storm, for this to be even remotely accurate.
And it’s because Trump is bold enough and smart enough to challenge this number that the Left attacks him, saying he is challenging this “without evidence”. Well, the number itself was presented without evidence and the MSM ran with it as though it’s the gospel!
Not to mention there are a lot of other estimates that have the death tolls going well over the 4,000s. So it’s clear that the Left is really trying to make a mountain out of this more-than-likely molehill.
Now, that’s not to say that we shouldn’t dismiss the hurricane’s devastation on the people of Puerto Rico. It destroyed homes, killed dozens according to official estimates (and likely more at this point, though still less than that 3,000) and left Puerto Rico in shambles. They need help and they should be receiving it. The problem comes with the fact that Puerto Rico is basically run by socialists, with one of its cities’ mayors being under FBI investigation over corruption, and Puerto Rico was basically already in dire need of help before the hurricane due to a debt crisis over recent years. People in Puerto Rico were already getting screwed by their government before the hurricane.
And taking into consideration the fact that 20,000 pallets of water bottles are sitting on an airport tarmac, that raises some level of suspicion regarding the local government. Why not distribute those water bottles if things are so incredibly dire? I’m not disputing that things are dire, but if anyone wants to put blame on anyone, it would have to go to whoever was responsible for delivering those water bottles, not Trump’s administration.
Not that any of these things will matter to the Left. If they can successfully blame Trump for Maria (they’re already trying to blame him for Florence) then they have some ammunition to use for the midterms. It doesn’t matter that the number is without evidence. It doesn’t matter that even Puerto Rico’s governor initially praised Trump over his response and effectiveness. It doesn’t matter that there are tons of undistributed water bottles in an airport tarmac in Puerto Rico. A death toll of 3,000 puts Bush’s Katrina death toll to shame and we all know how effective the Left was regarding that storm.
The interesting thing is that I doubt this will do much to help the Democrats down the line. Those who were already planning to vote Republican likely won’t just accept what the fake news media says and what the Left tells them. Those who were already planning to vote Democrat are already fairly energized, but that won’t matter if Republican voters are energized themselves.
But that’s to be talked about when we come closer to November.
The point I want to make with this article is that the Left’s purpose in using this number is to make Maria Trump’s Katrina. The problem the Left faces here is that Trump won’t sit quietly while the Left berates him over it. He always fights back, as he’s clearly doing now. And as we have seen plenty of times, Trump seems to be right while the Left is wrong (and lying).
Democrats only tend to do well when they can make Republicans submit. If Trump can successfully push back against this number, which will likely be difficult even if we all know it’s fake, then that obliterates the Left’s best weapon as of this moment.
I say it will be difficult even if we all know the number is fake because feelings don’t care about your facts when it comes to the Left. 3,000 is a big number that will trigger an emotional response. The Left, the media, the Democrats and Democrat voters won’t care that the numbers are presented without evidence and are not factually accurate. They care that the number is big and that they can make the connection to Trump, somehow.
Not to the fact that Puerto Rico, under socialism, was already a “s**thole” and that Puerto Ricans are being denied the water they need by someone within the local government, but the fact that Trump is currently POTUS.
Do you think this number would’ve ever come up if Hillary were POTUS? Of course not. The tally would likely be around the official estimates and, naturally, slightly increasing over time. But never to those levels under a Democrat President.
This death toll serves the same purpose as climate change in general: attack Trump and Republicans over supposed inaction. Never mind that Trump did his part in assisting Puerto Rico.
Again, at the end of the day, I doubt this will have a tremendous impact on the midterm elections. I’ve already made up my mind that I’ll vote for every Republican candidate on the ballot in my state. Even if they’re not great or not actual conservatives, it’s better to deal with these people than risk everything being thrown away under a Democrat majority in either or both chambers of Congress just because they don’t know how to deal with losing.
“Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. While the Left may lie to you about free college, free everything ever, we won’t lie to you about how free our weekly newsletter is. What you will receive is a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as easy access to our online store, all 100% free.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Every summer, the Left tries to make the claim that this year’s heat waves have been the worst on record and it is all our fault and we must elect more Democrats and give Democrat organizations more money to combat climate change. Every winter, they claim it’s the coldest winter to date and we must elect Democrats who will change course. If these idiots haven’t realized they’re talking about the changing seasons, there is little hope.
Still, there are some climate scientists who are not paid off by George Soros and the Democrat Party to make outrageous and often scientifically inaccurate claims about the changing climate of our planet. One such noted climate scientist is Dr. Roy W. Spencer, who often tries to put the brakes in people’s climate change hysteria by offering more accurate data.
Most recently, Dr. Spencer wrote an article challenging the message of a memo released by Public Citizen, a George Soros funded “consumer rights advocacy group”. In his article, Dr. Spencer shows graphs about New York’s maximum temperature for every June since 1895 (a figure from the NOAA) all the way to last year. The figure shows that the median temperature from 1901-2000 is 74.9 degrees Fahrenheit. It also shows that last year’s maximum temperature was LESS than 74.9 degrees.
According to Dr. Spencer: “The long term trend is not statistically different from zero.” In other words, New York’s maximum temperature last year is so close to the median, it’s statistically DEAD-SET on the median.
Dr. Spencer then mentioned: “The memo also made mention of the widespread record warmth the U.S. experienced in May, 2018. New York had its 7th warmest May on record this year, and the long-term linear warming trend there since 1895 is weak (0.22 F/decade) and not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. The May warmth in the U.S. was regional, as expected for weather variations, with much of Canada being exceedingly cold.”
And with the Left’s constant talks about this year being hotter than the last, Dr. Spencer makes quick mention of New York’s record high temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit. Take a guess as to when the state set this record. Surely, with all the talks about climate change, it must have happened in the last 20, 30 years tops, right? If the world is basically burning, we must be seeing record highs in a small timeframe, correct?
Not quite. It was on July 22nd, 1926 in Troy, New York. Over NINETY years ago. Do you want to know from what year it’s agreed (by the climate change community) substantial human-caused warming began? 1950, 24 years AFTER New York’s record high temperature.
So even they don’t have any argument that humans caused New York’s record high temperature. Thus, the only other possible contributor to the Earth’s change in climate is God. I know mentioning God in any scientific topic is taboo, for some reason, but let’s be honest here: nothing in this universe happens without God’s approval. That includes the Earth getting warmer or cooler.
But returning to New York, what’s more interesting is that the state’s record coldest temperature is far more recent. The state’s record low temperature is -52 degrees Fahrenheit. (If you thought 52 degrees was chilly, try its ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR DEGREES LESS!). This was on Feb. 18, 1979 in Old Forge, New York.
Now, if you want to talk about last week’s heat wave, Dr. Spencer has that covered, using the NOAA’s GFS forecast model for 5-day average temperatures. Dr. Spencer mentions: “… the excessive heat is (again) regionally isolated, which is exactly what we expect for weather… not for climate change.”
What the good doctor is saying here is that weather, even extreme weather, tends to affect specific regions. The concept of climate change only talks about global climate. Meaning that, under climate change, you would not have regional heat waves. You would have global-scale heat waves, which are not happening. The NOAA’s forecast shows that much of the southern states and west coast states are considerably colder.
Of course, that’s just the forecast. Let’s see what actually happened. According to Oregon State University’s Prism temperature analysis for July 1-2 (Dr. Spencer’s article was written on July 3rd) shows a similar picture to the forecast, although more of the southern states were covered in the heat wave and more of the Midwest avoided the heat wave (which was forecasted to hit them). This shows a couple of things.
First, this shows a temporary and localized weather pattern, again, contradicting the idea that we are suffering under climate change conditions (it would be warm everywhere, not just parts of the U.S.)
And second, it shows the inaccuracies and flaws with our current weather forecasting systems. The NOAA’s forecast showed more of the Midwest covered by the heat wave. According to what actually happened, that was erroneous. That doesn’t necessarily discredit the NOAA’s forecasting system, but it does show its flaws and inaccuracies.
What I’m trying to say here is that our current forecasting system can’t accurately predict the weather within a week, or even within a few days. But somehow, we can predict our Earth’s climate and state 50 to 100 years from now? At least when the Left was trying to predict 10 years down the road (still being completely wrong), they could be at least somewhat more believable (except when they would say all sea life would die and the ice caps will melt within that timeframe). But 50 to 100 years? Who could possibly accurately predict that? It’s just wild guesses to profit the Democrat Party and Democrat-affiliated organizations. Not to mention filling George Soros’ pockets.
Dr. Spencer then shows extreme high temperatures for the entire country from 1895 to 2017. The figure he shares (based from NOAA data) shows that there is no trend towards more hot days. In fact, 11 of 12 hottest years happened before 1960. The graph shows that the record high for days spent in a year with temperatures above 100 degrees was in 1935, with the second highest occurring a couple of years earlier and the third highest occurring in 1955. For 2017, we had (statistically) just over 4 days of temperatures over 100 degrees, and that’s the highest in roughly five years.
Finally, Dr. Spencer talks about renewable energy that the Public Citizen memo claims we can achieve with today’s technology (meaning today’s technology allowing 80 to 100% of our energy coming from renewable sources). Dr. Spencer (and logic) informs us that “this is patently false. Solar and wind are relatively diffuse (and thus expensive) sources of energy which are intermittent, requiring fossil fuel (or nuclear) backup. It would be exceedingly expensive to get even 50% of our energy from such sources.”
Of course, this is nothing new to us. We’ve known for ages that renewable energy is crazy expensive that would not get us anywhere near as much energy production as we do now. But it’s always good to see a climate scientist saying that renewable energy sources, as of right now at least, are simply too expensive and would be ultimately detrimental to people (even Dr. Spencer mentions that striving for using renewable energy right now would “worsen poverty” and would ultimately harm a lot of people).
Overall, it’s good to see a climate scientist calling out the Left’s hysteria when it comes to climate change. Usually, things aren’t even half as bad as these people claim they are. But hey, they need voters and the environment is so far the only thing they’ve got going for themselves since the economy is roaring, ISIS is defeated (pretty much), North Korea is looking to denuclearize and people are feeling confident about the future.
Wait, you’re telling me the Weekly Standard reported that greenhouse emissions in the U.S. are falling due to the falling costs of renewable energy and natural gas? And that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions last year plunged by 42 million tons, while “environmentally friendly” Europe’s emissions climbed by 92 million tons?
So, what you’re telling me is that Trump has been more environmentally friendly, despite rolling back green energy policies, than Europe?
Ok, maybe Democrats don’t have the environment card either.
“I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It’s not unheard of to see someone from a Left-leaning source (media, university, etc.) coming to grips with reality (to an extent) and realizing the error of the Left.
On Monday, in an op-ed written for the Wall Street Journal, Steven F. Hayward, a senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at U.C. Berkeley declared that Climate Change, as a prime political movement, is dead. And no, it’s not because of Trump, though he does say that the POTUS has a hand in it.
Hayward explains that the culprits to blame for the movement dying is the activists pushing the movement itself. Activists who have “let their social justice and ‘green utopian vision’ sabotage viable solutions,” according to the Daily Wire.
Hayward writes: “All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers.” And explains that most national governments are “backing away from forced-marched decarbonization.”
Regarding Trump’s hand in this, Hayward explains that, while the issue has run its course over Trump’s presidency thus far, the POTUS’ decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement “merely ratified a trend long becoming evident.”
Hayward then explains: “The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm – a blaring noise people are tuning out.” He also explains that this is not a surprise to some – that it was rather predictable.
Hayward cites an article by political scientist Anthony Downs in 1972 titled “Up and Down With Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle’”. Hayward lays out the five stages of a political movement, and the climate change movement fits the mold perfectly.
Here are the five stages:
He explains that climate change is in its last stage, where activists block viable solutions because of their ideology of social justice and a “utopian” environmental vision.
“A case in point is climate campaigners’ push for clean energy, whereas they write off nuclear power because it doesn’t fit their green utopian vision. A new study of climate-related philanthropy by Matthew Nisbet found that of the $556.7 million green-leaning foundations spent from 2011-15, ‘not a single grant supported work on promoting or reducing the cost of nuclear energy.’ The major emphasis of green giving was ‘devoted to mobilizing public opinion and to opposing the fossil fuel industry.’”
Hayward concludes by saying: “Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.”
All fascinating and very good points that Hayward makes.
It’s very logical and highlights today’s world, or at least today’s America. Despite the constant bombardment of propaganda by the MSM regarding the urgency of climate change, it doesn’t seem as though very many people are putting that at the forefront of their minds and worries.
If there is anything to take away from the 2016 election is that people wanted to prioritize other things apart from climate change. They wanted jobs to return, ISIS to be destroyed, illegal immigrants to be deported, a secure border and a return to God. The American people have had enough of the ridiculous climate change stories and propaganda and policy.
And it seems that Hayward has made note of this. Of course, I do have one problem with all of this. This is going by the assumption that climate change is either caused by humans or can be affected by humans. Neither of which is the case.
Ultimately, the search for “green energy” will not affect the planet’s climate even a little. The “green energy” that the Left seeks is not really environmentally-friendly at all. Electric power still requires coal or oil power plants to power up. That’s why I laugh at the concept of electric cars being “environmentally-friendly”. Sure, they may not individually emit exhaust like gas-powered cars, but they force coal or oil power plants to crank out more power, using more coal and oil than before.
Wind power farms are very costly and a hazard to birds, not to mention they only work in certain areas where there is a lot of wind. Solar power isn’t used an awful lot because it is insanely expensive. In fact, it is “five to eleven times more expensive to produce electricity from the sun than it is from coal, hydro or nuclear sources,” according to a website called “SolarPowerIsTheFuture.com”. And cost is not the only problem with solar power, as storing the energy produced by the sun is also a problem.
And with hydroelectric power, according to the website called “Environment-Ecology.com”, “… Hydropower facilities can have large environmental impacts by changing the environment and affecting land use, homes, and natural habitats in the dam area… [hydro power plants] may obstruct fish migration and affect their populations. [They] may also change the water temperature and the river’s flow. These changes may harm native plants and animals in the river and on land.”
So pretty much all of the solutions presented by environmentalist wackos have some sort of negative impact on the environment or are simply not cost-effective enough for anyone to use.
To believe that humans as a species have the power to affect the climate even a little is to believe humans are God-like beings. We are far from that. We do not have the power to negatively or positively affect the climate. We CAN affect the environment – that much is evident. But we can’t affect the planet’s global climate and temperature.
We can’t accurately predict the weather for next week, but we can somehow predict the climate of the Earth 50 to 100 years from now? And not only predict it, but affect it and change it in any way?
Like with many other Leftist ideologies and beliefs, it takes more faith to believe in man-made climate change than it does to believe in Creation, the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ. At least there is far more evidence for these things than man being responsible for climate change.
Regardless, I shall put that aside to recognize the perception of Steven F. Hayward in recognizing the slow death of a political movement. Don’t misunderstand, I don’t expect this to simply die out entirely and for people to stop believing in man-made climate change. But it seems clear that the movement will remain in a limbo state for the foreseeable future. Which, interestingly enough, is another mark of the Democrats’ almost certain future defeat in the midterms.
The movement’s state of limbo might be indicative as to why the Democrats aren’t making Climate Change their key issue. Sure, they might make it a key issue in the coming months as the midterm elections near. But as of the writing of this article, I don’t really see the Democrats sounding the alarms on it. You would think that this is something they would own and try to make a major political issue, but I haven’t seen much of that.
1 Corinthians 15:57
“But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It’s truly rare, with how often the Left signals the apocalyptic nature of Climate Change, that some climate scientists would release a study that challenges the over-dramatization of the whole scam.
Climatologist Judith Curry and mathematician Nick Lewis conducted a new study downgrading the predicted global temperature increases forecasted by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by 30-45%.
“Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level,” said Lewis.
In other words, their study suggests that Climate Change isn’t, at most, half as bad as the U.N. says it is.
This study is in accordance to another study published a few months earlier by University of Exeter’s Peter Cox, which concludes that the U.N.’s most dire of models were too high. “Our study all but rules out very low and very high climate sensitivities,” said Cox.
With all of that being said, I should also mention a video published by PragerU about 2 years ago.
The video features an atmospheric physicist who taught at MIT for 30 years who goes by the name of Richard Lindzen. I won’t go into a whole lot of detail about the video; rather, I’ll simply leave it down below for you to watch and learn from.
What I will be focusing on is the fact that, at one point, Richard points out something scientists tend to agree on: “no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made.”
Meaning that the only people that are confidently telling us that the planet will be uninhabitable in 50 or 100 years aren’t actual climate scientists, but rather scientists that don’t focus on the field of climatology and politicians, environmentalists, and media people. They are the only ones making the apocalyptic claims about Climate Change. And that much, we can already see.
But it’s important to point this out, because this signifies something important: the only people saying Climate Change will be our demise are the people who don’t have all the information and scientific knowledge to know otherwise.
We’ve known this for some time, but still. If anything, this further proves our conclusion that these people truly don’t know what they are talking about.
Knowing this, it really shouldn’t come as a surprise when actual climate scientists come in and tell people things aren’t nearly as bad as they think they are.
Now, with that said, I think I should also make mention of this: I’m not saying there is absolutely no change in the climate whatsoever. Frankly, I’d be a bit more worried if there was no change in the climate over time, because that’s indicative of something being seriously wrong with the planet.
What I’m saying is that humanity can’t possibly affect the planet anywhere near as much as the Left says we can. Even the video says that humanity is capable of having SOME noticeable effect, but what I’m saying is that the Left believes humanity is SOLELY responsible for Climate Change, which it’s not.
The climate is in nowhere near a horrible a state as the Left claims it is. There is no evidence to support such a claim. And the only things they can ever point to are computer models depicting what the Earth’s climate will be like in 50 to 100 years. Measuring such a thing is virtually impossible because there are far too many variables to confidently say what the Earth will be like in such a long time.
Heck, we can’t even accurately predict the weather IN THE NEXT WEEK! Let me tell you, there is no scientist out there that could’ve predicted a long winter for the beginning of 2018 back in 1968 or 1918. Likewise, we can’t accurately predict how THE ENTIRE WORLD’S CLIMATE will be in 2068 or 2118.
Of course, that doesn’t really matter to the people promoting the “end-times” scam. In copywriting, one of the tools for writers is to use a person’s emotions and feelings. Using someone’s fears to sell them something is a rather popular technique when the fear makes sense.
For example, no one in their right mind could possibly sell a car using the fear tactic. No one would say “buy this car or your spouse/friends/family will HATE you!” But when it comes to a person’s very life and environment, fear can be a good motivator.
How many people do you think tend to vote Democrat out of fear of Climate Change, believing that the Democrat candidate can actually do something to save their planet, and thus, their lives? I imagine tons of people do that, whether that is the only reason or not.
So, Democrats can abuse people’s fears of things they can’t directly control and fears for their own lives in order to win elections. It’s a clear scam, since no one can actually control it enough, so there is a constant fear and a constant “reason” to vote Democrat. The Democrat can’t do anything, but tells people he/she is doing the best they can but they will need constant support and cash flow to save your life.
Thus, Democrats can perpetually remain in power using the fears of people. That’s part of the big scam that is Man-made Climate Change.
Reality is far different from what they say it is. That’s something I’ve said multiple times in the past. Whether I’m talking about the numbers of people that support Trump, or the number of people who are conservative, or the reality of our planet’s climate status, the Left always alters things and makes them look favorable to them and devastating for everyone else.
They said Trump had about a 2% chance of becoming President the day of election, they say that most people despise Trump and regret voting for him, they say Republicans have no chance this November even though they have won multiple Special Elections and there tends to be more turnout in big elections, and they say we are perpetually destroying the planet with our mere existence.
That’s partly what led a lawyer to commit suicide by burning not long ago. It’s the Left’s attempt at altering reality (or at least people’s perception of reality) that drives most people to fear for their lives (at least on this issue), and thus, drives them to vote Democrat.
It’s nothing more than fearmongering to benefit the Establishment, environmentalist groups that Democrats donate to, and “scientists” who really should know better but are paid (either monetarily or through fame, or both) to parrot the Left’s positions.
This is a constant fight for the truth.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Over this past weekend, an environmental activist committed suicide in a park in Brooklyn, New York, to protest the use of “fossil fuel” and the supposed damage it’s doing to the world and its inhabitants.
The New York Post reported: “David Buckel, 60, left behind a charred corpse and a typed suicide note that said he was burning himself to death using ‘fossil fuel’ to reflect how mankind was likewise killing itself, police sources said.”
Some of the note reads as follows: “Most humans on the planet now breathe air made unhealthy by fossil fuels, and many die early deaths as a result… My early death by fossil fuel reflects what we are doing to ourselves,” adding: “Honorable purpose in life invites honorable purpose in death.”
“This is not new,” continued the letter. “As many have chosen to give a life based on the view that no other action can most meaningfully address the harm they see. Here is a hope that giving a life might bring some attention to the need for expanded actions, and help others give a voice to our home, and Earth is heard.”
This man horrendously ended his own life because he bought into the false belief of climate change. A hoax perpetrated by the Left to increase the size of the government, their power and their bank accounts has led a person to end his own life.
David fully believed the lies the Left was spewing about climate change and its apocalyptic nature, and believed we weren’t doing enough to end it… also believing we even could end it if it were happening.
Now, the air is fine. We are able to breathe just as well today as we could a century ago. And we’ll be able to breathe just as fine in a century as well. The only place that comes to mind that actually has unhealthy air to breathe would be China. In the U.S., we are far better off than the Chinese because we don’t have to constantly wear masks to cover our noses when we go outside.
David believed we are slowly but surely burning ourselves. There is no actual scientific data to show that we are doing such a thing. We are in the middle of April and have yet to fully experience Spring. Frankly, we’re closer to a global cooling than we are a global warming.
But none of that matters to the Left. As long as they can continue making money from exploiting people’s fears and can win elections and regain/retain power, they don’t care about people like David, whom they’ve mortally terrified with their lies.
Time and time again, climate change has been refuted by people who use logic and actual science, and time and time again, it has been claimed to be factually true by people who pervert science on a daily basis.
The same people that say there are more than two genders are the same people that say they believe and support science and facts. And no, gender isn’t different from sex. They’re synonyms. You can literally Google: “gender synonym” and the answer will be right there. Your gender is determined by your DNA, scientifically speaking, at least. Actually speaking, it would be God who determines your gender.
But the topic is science, so we’ll stick with science.
The Left, as I’ve said multiple times in the past, has made an utter mockery of science by making these inaccurate claims. And now, that propagandized science has taken the life of a human being. It’s not climate change that killed David, it’s the BELIEF and FEAR that climate change is real that killed him.
Nazism has killed over 10 million people. Communism has killed over 100 million. And Leftism has killed over 60 million people since Roe v. Wade in the U.S., and 1.4 BILLION in the world since 1980 (of course, this is all counting abortion). And over this weekend, it has killed someone who believed every word they said.
This is one of the very real consequences of the climate change movement. Of the movement made popular by Al Gore, and originated from Nazi Germany.
And the Left doesn’t care one single bit. Actually, let me correct that. They do care, but only in that he is made to be a martyr for them. CNN has already made quick work of this story, putting him on a pedestal for his work as a lawyer towards legalizing same-sex marriage.
But aside from a couple of nice (from a Leftist’s perspective) words about the guy, the Left will likely be quick to forget about him until he can be used once again for the very cause that cost him his life.
That’s how degenerate the Left is. They always use people to further their own agenda, even when that very agenda is what cost that person their life. They constantly use MLK for their own agenda despite the fact that he was a Republican and that Democrats were widely against the Civil Rights movement.
I fully believe that, given the chance, the Left would use David to further their agenda and make even more people afraid. Because that’s exactly what they want. They want people to be afraid, because people who are afraid will look for safety anywhere. They can “provide” that safety so long as those people vote Democrat.
It’s nothing more than fear-mongering and exploitation and it’s a Leftist specialty. There’s no other kind of person on Earth who would exploit the fears of others to advance their selfish agenda and desires. And there’s no other word to call them than “evil”.
Not a single one of the top climate change advocates will shed an actual tear and rethink what he’s doing. Because what it takes for someone to reconsider such a thing in this circumstance would be something I like to call “guilt”. The Left never feels this. They only pretend to feel it when talking about white people and black people, but even then they direct that guilt away from them as though they shouldn’t be lumped in with white people.
Chuck Schumer is white, Nancy Pelosi is white, Bill and Hillary Clinton are white; most prominent Democrats are white and somehow distance themselves from their own race when talking about “white guilt” as though they are not part of it, and they are the ones that have the most to do with African-Americans’ struggles in the U.S.
They never actually feel the “white guilt” they tell other white people they should feel because Leftists don’t ever actually feel guilt. All of these things advance their agenda, what would they have to feel guilty about? The self-imposed death of one of their advocates? To the Left, their biggest loss comes in the form of one less voter. That’s it.
And even then, if this can somehow result in more voters, they wouldn’t feel any sort of loss whatsoever, particularly if they can somehow turn this on Trump and conservatives and say something along the lines of “your inaction towards climate change cost this man his life” or something like that.
The Left won’t feel shame from this, knowingly lying to people about this and seeing the cost of those lies.
David should not have died on that day, certainly not in that manner. His blood is not on the hands of anyone but the Left and those who know climate change isn’t real but still pass it off as though it is. And I fully believe there are plenty of Leftists who know it’s not real but keep it to themselves so as to not go against their agenda.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Do you know who has even less credibility than the scientists who believe in Climate Change? The Leftist writers who believe in Climate Change and take every word of these idiotic scientists at face value.
That’s the case with New York magazine writer David Wallace-Wells, who wrote insane drivel about Climate Change and its future consequences.
He writes: “Numbers that large can be hard to grasp, but 150 million is the equivalent of 25 Holocausts. It is five times the size of the death toll of the Great Leap Forward – the largest non-military death toll humanity has ever produced. It is three times the greatest death toll of any kind: World War II.”
There’s faulty logic everywhere in a Climate Change believer’s arguments, but this takes it a step forward in how illogical it is.
For decades now, the Left has been shouting and screaming and making urgent the matter of Global Warming (aka Climate Change when they saw that the world wasn’t actually getting as hot as they predicted it would). They touted it as the biggest threat to humanity – an apocalyptic-level threat. 150 million people, while still a lot, is nowhere close to the 7 billion people currently residing on Earth.
That’s not exactly an apocalyptic-level threat. When a liberal thinks of Climate Change, they think about (among other things) that it will be the end of humanity. That statement goes against the very things the Left has been touting about Climate Change for over 20 years.
Now, that number didn’t come from his own head. It came from an actual scientific paper written by Drew Shindell, a Professor of Earth Sciences at Duke University.
His paper, titled: “Quantified, localized health benefits of accelerated carbon dioxide emissions reductions,” reads as follows: “… We therefore examine the human health benefits of increasing 21st-century CO2 reductions by 180 GtC (wish I could tell you what that means), an amount that would shift a ‘standard’ 2 degree Celsius scenario to 1.5 degrees Celsius or could achieve 2 degrees Celsius without negative emissions. The decreased air pollution leads to 153 plus-minus 43 million fewer premature deaths worldwide, with roughly 40% occurring during the next 40 years, and minimal climate disbenefits. More than a million premature deaths would be prevented in many metro-politan areas in Asia and Africa, and 200,000 in individual urban areas on every inhabited continent except Australia.”
That all sounds like one massive pile of b.s., particularly since most of it is difficult to understand just what the heck it’s even saying. Of course, I know that it’s one trick by the Left to claim that we are simpletons and don’t understand the finer things on this matter. Frankly, I challenge any regular liberal to translate this into English. But context is everything, even on this manner.
Let’s pay attention to the part about the degrees Celsius.
According to a “skeptical environmentalist”, Bjorn Lomborg: “… if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise (made in the Paris Climate Agreement) by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048 degrees Celsius by 2100.” In other words, every nation on Earth could do everything they could to reduce the global temperature and they’d only manage to reduce it by 1/20th of a degree Celsius, far off from that desired 1.5 or 2 degree Celsius this scientist claims we should (and must) achieve.
So even in a best-case scenario that every country in the Agreement (or even the world) could pull their own weight in fighting Climate Change (which is VERY far from being the case), we’d still not see significant results by the end of the CENTURY.
But returning to the SINO (Scientific In Name Only) paper, James Delingpole from Breitbart puts it best: “You really don’t need a PhD in bulls**t to realize that this is weapons-grade, copper-bottomed drivel. Like pretty much every paper ever published by the climate alarmism industry, all the scary predictions are merely projections based on modeled scenarios dependent on so many dubious assumptions that their conclusions are objectively worthless.”
“Here, translated into English, is what this report is basically saying: if only we can keep global warming down to 1.5 degrees Celsius, then 150 million lives will be saved. But what, you might reasonably ask, is going to kill all these people if we don’t keep global warming down to 1.5 degrees Celsius? Well may you wonder. It’s not like carbon dioxide is a poison at current atmospheric concentrations. Even if we doubled it, it would still be considerably less than is pumped into commercial glasshouses by fruit growers…”
And so you can see why nothing coming from the Left, including this, makes any sort of sense. If the world was dying as much as they claim it is, more than 150 million people would die. If the world is really dying, we’d see actual evidence of that. If the world was getting hotter, we wouldn’t have seen a sort of extended winter going on through the first week of SPRING.
If the world was actually in danger of Climate Change, according to Bjorn’s research, there’d be nothing we could possibly do. And, if anything, that research alone should be enough evidence to show people that Climate Change is not a man-made event. If we can’t reduce the Earth’s global temperature by more than 1/20th of a degree Celsius, how could we have increased it by as much as the Left claims we have?
The Left often blames carbon-dioxide emissions for Climate Change. But that, in large, is a mostly new thing. Humanity didn’t start to emit those emissions (in large quantities) until roughly the Industrial Revolution, which increased the use of steam power, not just coal.
That happened from 1760 to, at most, 1840. And the automobile hadn’t been mass produced until 1901. It’s been a tad over a century since then, so how is it that we’ve raised the global temperatures and continue to do so as much as the Left is saying we are?
And let’s also take a look at the various ice ages that have occurred throughout Earth’s lifetime. There have been 5 major ice ages in Earth’s history: the Huronian (the earliest), Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age, and the current Quaternary glaciation (Wikipedia makes the claim that we’re in another Ice age currently because of the presence of extensive ice sheets in both poles, fitting the definition of “glaciation”). The Huronian Ice age happened around 2 billion years ago. The first humans, at least according to evolutionists’ definition for humans, didn’t come around until around 9 million years ago.
All of the Ice ages from the Huronian to the Karoo Ice age obviously occurred well before the existence of mankind. Ice ages can be considered a sort of climate change, right? So how could anyone honestly believe we have any sort of ability to affect the Earth’s climate anywhere near as much as the Left claims we do?
It defies logic and even science.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I believe I’ve mentioned before how the Left has absolutely no sense of humor. Apparently, that extends to waste-of-time hypotheticals like “what would happen to the Earth if superheroes were real?”
The Washington Post, funny enough, actually has published TWO articles regarding superheroes in real life. One of the articles talks about the cost of commuting if the heroes didn’t have powers but still went everywhere they went in their recent film adaptations (although that kinda defeats the purpose of them being called “superheroes” if they have no powers).
But we’ll be focusing on the second of these articles. The one that actually would blame superheroes for causing damage to Earth by simply EXISTING! Yep, it’s not enough that they blame humanity for climate change. They also have to blame superheroes in this hypothetical.
The article is titled: “Superheroes might save the world, but they’d totally wreck the environment”.
The author of the article talks about some research done by Miles Traer, a Stanford University geologist, and two of his colleagues.
“Traer and two colleagues have calculated the carbon footprint for nine heroes from the comic book canon – and realized that Earth might be better off if they stopped trying to save it,” reads the article.
Yeah, it’s better for the world to be under the control of the Legion of Doom than for the superheroes to supposedly damage the Earth fighting the supervillains, I guess.
“Barbara Gordon, the computer wizard also known as Oracle (or more commonly known: Batgirl), is by far the worst offender: Even if her servers ran on a combination of clean energy sources – nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind and geothermal – running them would still release more than 1.3 billion pounds of carbon dioxide per year.”
“But Gordon’s DC Comics associates are hardly better. To run at the speed of light, the Flash would need to consume [around 60 billion] calories per second – the rough equivalent of a 12-foot tall hamburger every week. That adds up to nearly 90 million pounds of carbon dioxide per year. Meanwhile, flying alone would require Batman to burn the fossil fuel equivalent of 344 plane rides from New York to San Francisco.”
Look, I won’t waste my time debating these figures. I’m not a comic book nerd and so I can’t really debate these with facts and information that I usually present with other topics. But I’m not here to do that. This article isn’t about debating the logic (or lack thereof) of the “realistic” consequences of having these superheroes. This article is about demonstrating just how dull and lacking in any sense of humor the Left is.
Aside from flat out wasting your time calculating how much Batman screws the Earth with his Batmobile, this also takes all the fun away from a hero such as Batman.
Almost all kids (mostly boys) play superheroes. I used to own a Batman costume when I was younger and would often play with my best friend who would play another version of Batman. I wasn’t exactly worried about the implications of using the Batmobile or the Batplane (is that what it’s called?) would have on the Earth. I wouldn’t imagine myself using these vehicles and having them run on corn or something more “eco-friendly”.
So thinking about these implications not only are a waste of time, but they also make Batman and other superheroes less fun.
I look at these superheroes as sources of entertainment. I don’t rack my brain thinking about just how much damage they do to the environment. I think of the Flash as a guy that runs very, very fast. Not as someone who needs to eat a king’s feast worth of food to function.
But the Left, being the massive killers of fun that they are, can’t help but to waste their time saying that these heroes would quickly kill the Earth. Not just that, but they even make suggestions. Of the Flash, they say that “by going vegetarian, the Flash could reduce his emissions from 90 million pounds of carbon dioxide to just 3 million.” Of Batman: “If Bruce Wayne stopped spending money on Batman gear, he could pay for carbon offsets for the entire population of downtown Chicago.”
And here’s possibly the most Leftist part of the entire article: “The implied message: If a masked vigilante with too much money and a shortage of good judgment can redeem himself, you can, too.”
THERE IT IS! There’s the Leftist message this article was missing! Not only did they make these heroes less fun, but they also point the blame to real people. First, there’s no such thing as an individual having “too much money”. But of course, being a Leftist, this writer is insanely jealous of A FICTIONAL BEING and believe he shouldn’t have the money that he has.
Second, I love how she (the writer of the article is a woman) also believes we have to redeem ourselves of anything to do with the climate. How very Leftist of her.
She just has to remind you that you have “a hand in destroying the planet and have done next to nothing to redeem yourself of this horrendous crime against nature.”
But it’s not just the writer of the article that points the blame to people. The researcher does as well.
“’In learning how to make this better’ – Traer points to a circle on his poster (yes, they made a poster of this joke of a research work) illustrating the carbon footprint of the Flash’s hamburger-based diet – ‘we can learn how to make this better’ – he points to a much smaller circle representing the footprint of an average American: 44,093 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.”
I just love how the scientist attempts to justify the work put into this research by saying if we learn how to make the Flash more eco-friendly, we can learn how to make ourselves more eco-friendly.
Mr. Scientist, make no mistake, this research is a massive waste of time that only takes the fun out of superheroes. No one honestly cares that Batman would essentially destroy the planet with his fuel consumption if he were real. I think people would honestly be more excited if there was a real-life Batman.
And let’s not forget that there’s really no bigger enemy of the planet than the Left. May I remind you that Obama made a climate change video while aboard Air Force One? May I remind you that “eco-friendly” Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore have MASSIVE carbon footprints themselves? The funny thing about that is that the Left even EXCUSES them because they’re climate change advocates… kinda like they excused Harvey Weinstein for 30 years of sexual assault because he was a feminist activist and Democrat Party donor.
If the Left wants to point the finger at anyone, it should be themselves. If they want people to start living a certain way, they themselves should be living the lifestyle they demand we have.
It’s part of the reason I don’t consider people like Bernie Sanders and just about everyone on the Left to be true socialists. They preach about socialism yet they live like the very capitalists they claim to hate.
Bernie Sanders is an “open socialist” who constantly tells us we have to be like Venezuela while at the same time he is the proud owner of FOUR HOMES! He’s not a socialist, he’s a hypocritical moron with no knowledge of economics. A socialist in ideology only and not in practice.
The point is that these people may make claims all day long, but they are in fact more responsible for “destroying the Earth”, as they say, than the average American. If they truly want Americans to live a certain way, they have to begin with themselves.
Bernie Sanders clearly has “too much money”, so he should sell, or better yet, donate, three of his homes to people in need. Nancy Pelosi clearly has “too much money” since she has to pay SIX mortgages, the cheapest of which is a mortgage of at least $250,000, according to Red State. The Clintons clearly have “too much money” since they have amassed around $240 million since leaving the White House in 2001, according to Forbes.
All of them Leftists in thought and capitalists in practice (in personal finance, at least).
Yet another example of Leftist hypocrisy, wouldn’t you agree?
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
Before we get started with this article, I would first like to say that I hope you had a very Merry Christmas yesterday full of blessings and joy with family and loved ones. Now, let’s begin with the article.
While most people tend to relax and enjoy the great holiday that is Christmas, the Left, being the massive Scrooges they typically are, decided against simply celebrating Christmas. They also wanted to continue to push their agenda and further brainwash kids with their propaganda.
The Daily Wire wrote a story titled: “Government of Canada Claims Santa Claus Has Fled The North Pole Because Of Global Warming.”
Yep, yet another political, brainwashing tactic to scare kids into “saving the planet” and “fighting climate change.”
The article cites a little story published on the Government of Canada website. The story is titled: “Santa is moving to the South Pole”.
Here’s what it says: “Thanks to rising global temperatures, rapidly melting Arctic ice and growing human operations in the North, Santa Claus has signed an agreement with the International community to relocate his village next year to operate in an exclusive zone in the South Pole. Santa’s relocation agreement marks the first time that the international community agrees on a common legal definition of climate change that includes refugees as corporations, as well as individuals. This deal is expected to lead to the deployment of a global climate change refugee visa system that in the near future could help to more easily relocate individuals and corporations facing the impacts of climate change.”
Someone really put an awful lot of thought into this pile of garbage.
But we can see the intention of this story. They’re scaring kids by telling them “Santa has to move to the South Pole because of you.” Which hardly even makes sense in and of itself. If Santa had to move because of climate change, wouldn’t the South Pole be in danger of facing the same fate as the North Pole, which, by the way, IS NOT CLOSE TO MELTING YET AT ALL?!
Why would he move to the South Pole if climate change will force him out of there too eventually? Did he just decide to move to the literal opposite side of the world instead of moving somewhere closer like, say, Canada?
Did he take one look at the socialism there and realize he’ll probably be overtaxed because of his mass production of toys for kids around the world? I mean, he’s a producer, and producers tend to not do so well with socialist governments.
I also find it funny how they try to rope in refugees as well. It’s not enough to push for the climate change agenda that actually takes more faith to believe in than Christianity, but they also have to make a push for helping out these “refugees” who are suffering due to the climate change humanity is causing.
These people simply couldn’t take one day to rest from their erroneous and often times, hateful (though not necessarily in this case), narratives.
While kids are enjoying themselves opening the presents Santa got for them, Canada decided to tell them “Well, while you’re enjoying opening up that new Lego set, Santa has to move himself, his wife and all of his elves somewhere else because people like you and your parents aren’t doing enough to save the Earth. Happy Holidays!”
Yes, there’s nothing quite as rewarding as making children worry over guilt and possibly cry during Christmas.
But we can all see what they’re trying to do here. The brainwashing process is never quite done.
Ignore the fact that it’s virtually impossible for humanity to have a major impact in the climate of the world. Ignore the fact that the world has historically gone through multiple phases of extreme cold and warmth. Ignore that there have been at least FIVE major ice ages in the history of the world. Ignore the fact that all the “data” the Left ever presents is man-made data. Ignore the fact that any data relating to sea-temperatures can also be explained by the fact that EARTH’S CORE IS HOT TOO!
Ignore all sorts of logic that tell you climate change, at least man-made climate change, is not possible.
This is precisely why I say that it takes more faith to believe in climate change than Christianity. At least Christianity offers INARGUABLE PROOF of the existence of God. The very universe around you should be enough to tell you God exists. But there’s nothing the Left has shown or could possibly show that can convince me of the existence of climate change, at least a man-made climate change.
I’m a reasonable person. I understand that Earth’s climate DOES change. But it’s not via anything you or I or the world’s population do as a whole. God is the only being in existence with the power to control the climate.
And to a degree, I think even the Left knows this. They know it’s a sham, but they can’t possibly admit that to anyone. They have to live in that constant lie. And they do it not to “save the Earth”. They do it to gain more power and money from people.
That’s the goal of that Santa story. Kids want to help Santa. The Canadian government (or really any government that pushes for this tactic) can offer “solutions” to this “problem” and kids will passionately support it. Why? Because kids are never rational. They are never logical. But that’s ok because they’re just kids.
So what’s the Left’s excuse for never being rational and logical?
“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
Oh, yes. Yet another tie to the Nazis that the Left shares. Aside from Anfita’s fascist approach to advancing their agenda, Rupert Darwall, a Consulting Director with the White House Writers Group, tells us in his new book “Green Tyranny” that Nazi Germany was the original driver of the Climate Change scare.
Now, I know that this sounds a bit too good to be true. I would love to debate a liberal on Climate Change and see the look on his face when I tell him that the ideology originated from Hitler. So, it’s natural to feel skeptical about it. You need evidence. And evidence Darwall provides.
Darwall explains that the Nazis, much akin to the American and Global Left, worshipped nature. In Hitler’s book, “Mein Kampf”, the evil man wrote: “When man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man.”
According to Breitbart: “The Fuhrer, in other words, was as big a Gaia (the Greek deity of the Earth, or “Mother Earth”, if you will) worshipper as even Naomi Klein or Emma Thompson or Leonardo DiCaprio. As Hitler thought, so did the Nazi intelligentsia. Many of them were vegetarians and, like Rudolf Hess (Deputy Fuhrer of the Third Reich) and Agriculture Minister Walter Darre were big fans of organic farming. The party was fiercely anti-smoking… They were also massively into ‘renewable’ energy, especially wind, tidal power and hydroelectric.”
And according to Breitbart: “Hitler said in a dinner party conversation in 1941: ‘We shall have to use every method of encouraging whatever might ensure us the gain of a single kilowatt… Coal will disappear one day… The future belongs, surely, to water – to the wind and the tides.’”
And Darwall made sure to not pull any punches: “The Nazis’ profound hostility to capitalism and their identification with nature-politics led them to advocate green policies half a century before any other political party. As an approximation, subtract the Nazi race-hate, militarism and desire for world conquest, and Nazi ideology ends up looking not dissimilar to today’s environmental movement.”
Advice for the Left: apply cold water to the burned area. I know I’ve used that joke before, but man does it feel good to use it.
The only thing I disagree with his statement is the subtraction of the similarities between the Nazis and the environmental movement. The environmental movement is the Left’s creation (clearly, since the Nazis are the first to use it and they are part of the Left). The Democrat Party has a history of hatred of other races (particularly African Americans), the KKK and, to an extent, Antifa are pretty much the militant arm of the Left and their Globalist views exposes their desire for world domination.
Still, you can’t help but applaud Darwall for his brazen decision to expose the origins of the Climate Change scare.
Like I said, the ideology, bordering on religion, of Climate Change is entirely the Left’s creation. The Breitbart article puts it best: “Angela Merkel’s Energiewende, the brainwashing of your kids in school with green propaganda, the Climate Industrial Complex, the black outs in South Australia, Solyndra, Obama promising that electricity prices would ‘necessarily skyrocket’, the bat-chomping bird-slicing eco-crucifixes destroying a skyline near you, the real reason Trump just had to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord – it’s all basically the fault of the Nazis.”
If only you could see the massive grin on my face as I’m writing this article. To think that the very people calling Trump and his supporters “Nazis” are the ones who diligently follow in the last remainder of Hitler’s legacy.
Of course, it’s expected of the Left to entirely ignore this fact or even deny it, but the evidence is clear: Hitler is the grandfather of the modern Left.
If anything, the Democrat Party and any other Leftist party in the world is closer to being a neo-Nazi party than the GOP ever could be accused of being.
And the evidence lies beyond even Darwall’s book. Earlier, I mentioned Antifa’s fascist means of advancing their agenda. And it’s true. Their desire to “punch Nazis in the face”, to burn books, to create riots, are much akin to the Nazi Military Police. The only difference is that, thankfully, Antifa aren’t the ones in power.
The Nazis took away people’s guns so they wouldn’t and couldn’t fight back. The Left wants to do the same through years of gun laws that they themselves know will serve only to harm people.
The Nazis burnt books that taught people a different ideology, such as Bibles. The Left wants to restrict the churchs’ voice in American politics (remember the Johnson Amendment that prohibited non-profit organizations such as churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates under threat of losing tax-exemption privileges?)
And now we also know that the Nazis were the originators of the environmental movement. Fantastic!
And you know what else? I remember a post I’ve seen on occasion on Facebook. It’s a post that quoted Adolf Hitler and Hillary Clinton. According to the post, Hitler said: “Society’s needs come before the individual’s needs.” And that Clinton said: “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
The quotes basically mirrored each other, but I did some more research and couldn’t definitively find said quote. While doing research, I came across a “fact-checking” article from Snopes saying that there’s no documentation of either having said what the post claims to have said. But what makes me doubt the article (aside from the fact that Snopes is Leftist and they would naturally deny such a link between a Democrat and Hitler), is that at one point the article writes: “Even though Hitler led a political party known as the ‘National Socialist German Worker’s Party’, he was no socialist.”
And that’s where the small amount of credibility I had for the article went out the window. In case this ignoramus doesn’t know HITLER IS ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS’ PARTY! Meaning that HE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE SOCIALIST! In other words, HE HIMSELF WAS SOCIALIST!
Now, I won’t definitively say that Hillary and Hitler both said those things, but knowing that they are both socialist, I know that’s something they both believe(d) in.
Socialism is about the “community”. Individuals are made into nothing. All socialist concepts such as redistribution of wealth and, more importantly, increasing the size and scope of the government focuses on the “collective” of people, not the individual.
I can’t prove that Hitler and Hillary said those things, but I KNOW that’s something they believe(d).
Still, I enjoyed learning this fascinating bit of information. Truth be told, I always thought the Climate Change movement was originated, if not more massively propelled, by the likes of Al Gore. In reality, he alongside everyone who believes Climate Change to be real and the biggest threat to mankind all share a special bond with Adolf Hitler.
It seems the evidence is clear: The Left, all around the modern world, is the descendant of Nazi Germany.
“Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Whenever a hurricane occurs, whether it be a major hurricane or not, the Left is always quick to blame climate change and, by association, Republicans and mankind for the damage we do to our poor planet. Last year, some of the southeastern states were hit by a weaker hurricane than Harvey, named Hurricane Matthew. This year, the people of Texas have been the ones to suffer the effects of the hurricane, particularly Houston.
And it’s particularly BECAUSE of Houston getting flooded as much as it is that the Left wants to make a stronger case for climate change with this hurricane. Even though Houston has a long history of flooding by relatively minor rain, the Left will never miss an opportunity to point out climate change wherever they can.
But one climatologist acknowledges the fact that, even though it’s uncommon for the hurricane to have stalled over Houston and caused so much rain in the area, it’s not a sign of our climate getting worse.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer wrote an article on his personal site titled “Why Houston Flooding Isn’t a Sign of Climate Change”. Now that title alone could easily trigger a liberal. He writes: “In the context of climate change, is what we are seeing in Houston a new level of disaster which is becoming more common? The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur.”
He’s basically saying that natural weather disasters aren’t all typically the exact same. Which is rather obvious. A hurricane striking, say, Florida is going to be different to one striking Texas or New Jersey. And that’s because different variables are in place for each storm in each location. Even location itself is a variable. But just because a hurricane is doing things others typically and historically haven’t done doesn’t mean that climate change is at work here, or that Mother Nature is getting her revenge.
Dr. Spencer continues by saying that “floods aren’t just due to weather.” “Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil… The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.”
As humanity expands and technology becomes more advanced and readily available, cities and towns start to become altered by new advancements in our civilization. Urban development naturally means that the landscape in the area will be changed, meaning that the way the water caused by rain or major storms is taken care of is changed. As Dr. Spencer said, with the city of Houston expanding, the water is steered in the direction of downtown Houston rather than being soaked up by the earth. Don’t ask me why the water is directed to downtown Houston, it’s just the way the city was built.
He continues to say “There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935, a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet. By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. Monday morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I’m sure that will continue to rise.”
So we even know, as I said earlier in this article, that Houston has a history of getting flooded, with the worst of it seemingly happening in 1935. And that flood wasn’t even the result of a hurricane. It was just constant rains in the area causing the flood. Besides, this is 1935. The automobile at the time was largely steam-powered, with diesel engines beginning to be made only 5 years prior. Not to mention that the population was significantly less than today. So I highly doubt the Houston flood of 1935 was caused by mean, capitalist men polluting the planet.
Dr. Spencer goes on to talk about whether the rainfall totals were unprecedented, in which he says that the only thing unprecedented about the totals is WHERE they landed, not the amount of rainfall that happened.
He also talks about whether Harvey’s intensity was unprecedented, which he says that it’s really not, since in the last 44 years, we’ve had 4 Category 4 hurricanes strike the U.S., with 14 more in the last 88. Basically, we’ve actually had LESS intense hurricanes in the past half-decade.
He concludes his article by saying: “Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of humans.” And he’s completely right about that. Hurricanes have always happened in the history of the Earth in areas that get hurricanes. Some have been completely devastating, particularly one that hit Galveston in 1900, which killed between 6,000 and 12,000 people. While some have been without much fatality (particularly BECAUSE of technological advancements and innovation that the Left seems to despise).
The point is that hurricanes happen in the intensity they occur simply because God ordains it so. We have nothing to do with the frequency or intensity of any particular hurricane. If we actually COULD affect the weather in which the Left claims we can, then California would never go through any drought. We would increase all the factors that “contribute to climate change” in that area to solve California’s drought problem… at least in 50 to 100 years, according to the Left.
To me, the Left’s claims that we are capable of severely altering the weather is basically the equivalent to believing a rain dance would actually cause rain. The logic is about the same in both cases.
And, interestingly enough, both cases exclude God’s sovereignty on the Universe. It makes sense, since the Left doesn’t believe in God, they think we can become like gods. But we are mere humans, with mortal flesh. We can’t accurately predict what the weather will look like by the end of the week, and we can’t do anything to change what will happen. Only God has that power.
“Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in Heaven and on Earth, in the seas and all deeps.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...