For whatever reason the biggest concern for Climate Change geniuses is carbon dioxide (CO2).
In an effort to decrease human-generated CO2 emissions, global warming alarmist have devoted billions of of taxpayer dollars developing "green" energy sources--including solar plants like the one pictured above and praised by President Obama as a "shining example of America's clean energy future." (see HERE)
However, as with most liberal government projects, the results are often the opposite from what was intended. In its first year, the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility (pictured above) emitted 46,000 metric tons of CO2. (ibid)
Evidently, CO2 can now be classified as "green."
Even more amusing, after all the hot air generated over human use of fossil fuels, Bob Sheppard explains: "That one single burp from Mt. Etna has already put more than 10,000 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind has in our ENTIRE time on earth."
This raises the salient question whether Mother Nature will be charged a carbon tax?
I used to chalk it up to ineptness, but now I am wondering if Obama is intentionally helping the terrorist. Here is why:
Following the decline of global terrorism towards the end of the Bush administration (see HERE), terrorists needed state support and "SAFE PLACES" to regroup and rebuild. Obama allowed for or helped establish both by: a) prematurely withdrawing troops from the two leading nations for terrorism--Iraq and Afghanistan (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE); b) toppling stable regimes in Libya (see HERE and HERE and HERE) and Egypt (see HERE and HERE and HERE); and counterproductive involvement in Syria (see HERE and HERE), to name just a few.
The terrorists have needed FUNDING to rebuild, and Obama has made that possible by failing to attack the terrorist's primary sources of revenue (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and by his own admission, giving billions of dollars to one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism--Iran. (see HERE and HERE), among other things.
The terrorists need WEAPONS to succeed, and Obama has provided them with guns and the like (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), including via Benghazi (see HERE), and permitted the largest state sponsor of terrorism to develop nukes. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
The terrorist have needed COVER to somewhat secretly grow in size and sophoistication, which Obama has provided by manipulating intelligence data (see HERE) and creating the illusion that terrorism has been defeated and contained and not an existential domestic threat (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), when it has been just the opposite.(see HERE and HERE and HERE) Obama has also provided cover by deflecting attention away from terrorist: a) by refusing to identify terrorist attracts as terrorism--calling them insurgencies or spontaneous riots or workplace violence (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE); b) obscuring the political/religious impetus behind terrorism and disallowing declarations of the obvious (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE); and c) misdirecting attention away from terrorism to climate change (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) and gun control (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) and unwarranted concerns for non-victims--i.e. the backlash against Muslim that hasn't significantly happened. (see HERE) Finally, Obama and others have provided cover by grossly downplaying the threat of certain terrorist organizations (calling them the "JV Team"--junior varsity) as well as their terrorist acts (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and by covering up or giving attention to relatively few of the hundreds or thousands of attacks each year (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and this only when it is unavoidable and can be exploited for political purposes, or vice versa. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
To get into this country and elsewhere, terrorist have required ease of ACCESS. So, Obama has made the boarders more porous and encouraged illegal immigration. (see HERE and HERE and HERE) And, after ISIS said it has and would infiltrate Syrian refugees (see HERE and HERE and HERE), Obama significantly ramped-up acceptance of Syrian refugees into the U.S. (see HERE and HERE) And, he has mocked and vowed to fight against increased vetting measures or moratoriums. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
Once in the country or elsewhere, the terrorists have needed PROTECTIONAGAINST DETECTION. Obama has banned certain proven interrogation techniques even though he has relied on those techniques in his seemingly faux war on terror.(see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) He refuses to consider certain terrorist intel. (see HERE) His DHS (Dept. of Homeland Security) shut down a probe that would have stopped the San Bernardino attacks. (see HERE and HERE and HERE) And, federal investigators have been prevented from using Social Media to detect terrorism. (see HERE and HERE) Rush Limbaugh posted this: "t's the instruction sheet that the Department of Homeland Security uses to train agents in what they are allowed to do and not do. It's only two pages. Sections C and F are the money sections -- and Section F could have been written by the Muslim Brotherhood. It could have been written by CAIR." (see the instruction sheet HERE)
Following capture or arrests, terrorists have needed PROTECTION AGAINST FULL PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT. Obama has granted terrorists the same rights and legal protections as U.S. citizens, rather than treating them as enemy combatants, making it far more difficult to prosecute them.(see HERE) He has also released a number of terrorists from prison, some of whom have resumed terrorizing. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
And, to avoid getting hamstrung assisting terrorists, Obama and his administration, liberal followers and media supports, have needed to OBFUSCATE and COVER-UP. (see links above as well as HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
Now, in light of all this evidence, even if one assumes that Obama has been woefully inept in fighting terror, and didn't intentionally try to assists terrorists, it still seems clear that he couldn't have done much better at helping them were he to have actually tried--which leaves me to seriously consider that he did try.
Terrorists may well ask: "With enemies like that, who needs friends?"
The President and a number of his leftist supporters believe it is politically incorrect to identify terrorists as radical or extremist Muslims for fear that all of Islam will be tainted and punished for the sins of a few. (see HERE and HERE and HERE)
While their intent maybe admirable, what the Left doesn't get, and as is often the case with liberalism, their political correctness inadvertently causes the very thing they hoped to avoid. Clear and repeated differentiation is critical to preventing confusion and conflation. Political correctness removes the clear differentiation, thus contributing to the confusion and conflation.
This is particularly pertinent since many terrorist organizations unequivocally identify themselves as Muslims (I though liberals were very big into identity politics? Is this another double standard?) and do their horrid act in the name of their religion. No rational and aware person on the planet would deny their Islamic religious affiliations regardless how distorted they may be. Their religion is an obvious and important factor in their behavior.
So, it isn't as if by not mentioning their obvious faith it will somehow make their faith not so.
Instead, it merely serves to blur lines and co-mingle the guilty with the innocent, and encourage counterproductive generalizing and unwanted broad strokes.
What will it take for the Left to wise up?
My buddy, Loran, posed some relevant questions. He asked: "What 'backlash against Muslims? Muslims as a class? Where? When? Who?"
I responded: "Good question, Loran. As you may have observed, efforts have been underway for some time to position Muslims as a victim class, with the hope of garnering and justifying special treatment. Ironically following the lead of homosexuals, Muslim leaders and sympathizers have been promoting the myth of "Islamophobia," while conveniently ignoring the far more pervasive anti-Israeli sentiment among Muslims. What they don't understand is they victimize Muslims by unwarrantedly putting them in a victim box.The backlash is the self-imposed stigma and debilitation of victimhood." (see HERE)
I went on to note: "Granted, there are anecdotes that people can point to as evidence of a backlash, such as Trump's recent announcement, Republican resistance to Syrian refugees, profiling, vandalism of Mosques, and trends in sentiments towards Muslims--of course mis-characterized by mainstream media using false and incendiary labels." (see HERE and HERE)
And, while hate crimes are up against Muslims in the U.S. (see HERE), though they peaked under Obama in 2010 (see HERE), this needs to be put into perspective. There were 135 anti-Muslim incidents as compared with 625 against Jews, 653 against whites, and 1,856 against Blacks. None of the anti-Muslim incidents resulted in death, but most involved simple assault and intimidation. (see HERE and HERE) The rate of hate crimes against Muslims is statistically insignificant, and vary by state, disproportionately higher in red or Democrat states. (see HERE)
Compare this to the San Bernardino attack by Muslims against Americans, where 14 people were killed and 21 people were seriously injured, which was far less than planned given the bombs that failed to exp[lode. (see HERE)
And, who can forget the carnage and thousands of death on 9/11. (see HERE)
All of this pales in comparison to Muslim-on-Muslim crimes, as witnessed to by the many century-old conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims. (see HERE)
In short, what little 'backlash' may occur, it is largely self-imposed, and is dwarfed by the front-lash between warring Muslim factions. 200,000 deaths from the Syrian Civil war alone, and this does include the 1.4 million, or 1/4th the Syrian population who have been displaced from their homes. (see HERE)
In his speech following the domestic terrorist attacks in San Bernardino (see HERE), the President once again ignored the source of the real threat, shifted blame, and waxed overly protective of Muslims.
Not a few people found the speech disturbing. (see HERE and HERE)
If only he was as concerned for Christians and law-abiding gun owners and pro-life advocates. Can you imagine were Obama and other liberals to flashmob this following the shootings at Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs:
One wonders why Obama didn't bring up Climate Change during the speech, considering it is supposedly the greatest security risk to our nation (see HERE)
If you can believe it, Obama and other liberal leaders have claimed that climate change (what used to be called "global warming") is our nations greatest security risk, even greater than terrorism. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
One of the key concerns over global warming is the rise of oceans around the world. And, while shorelines have gone down along some coast over the last decade, the average rise is alleged to have been 8cm since 1992 (see HERE), or about 1/0th of an inch a year.
Alarmists attribute rising sea levels to shrinking polar regions alleged due to global warming. The only problem with this is that Antarctica isn't shrinking. (see HERE)
More important, when it comes to determining national security risks, mortality is a critical variable.
Yet not a single death has been credibly attributed to global warming in 2014, as compared to 33,000 caused by terrorism (see HERE), though alarmist have wildly and loosely attempted to tie between a quarter and half a million deaths a year to human generated climate change (see HERE and HERE) Interestingly enough, severe weather related deaths have declined over the last three year (333 in 2014, 446 in 2013, and 528 in 2012--see HERE)
Then there is this graph...
...which makes me wonder where in the re-occurring cycles does climate change/global warming become the greates threat to national security? :-/
It is quite an accomplishment for liberals to redefine a word so radically that it becomes an oxymoron of itself, but with the term "progressive," they managed just that.
Below is an ongoing list of abject failures and digressions brought about by liberals under the banner of "progressive:"
It should be noted that members of Obama's own administration have warned against ISIS embedded among refugees (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and the Democrat's beloved Pope offers similar warnings (see HERE), and that ISIS leaders have claimed that thousands of extremists have been smuggled into Europe as refugees (see HERE), and ISIS or terrorist have actually been found among the refugees, even in the U.S. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE),
Documentation: 1/3rd of Syrian Refugees Support ISIS 13% of Syrian Refugees Support ISIS
As the liberals ramp up their faux sanctimony about the Syrian refugee crisis (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), it is important for readers to know that this is blame-shifting at is worst and that things are almost the opposite from what is being suggested.
First, the meteoric rise of ISIS is in part due to the inaction of Obama, both in Iraq and Syria and the surrounding region. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE),
Here is a video of what several Mideastern pundits think of Obama's inaction: (see HERE)
Second, when Obama finally decided to get involved in the turmoil, his tactics inadvertently caused disgruntled civilians (oft the hapless victims of U.S. bombings) to sympathize with ISIS (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), though you may not have heard about this because it has been hushed by some in the mainstream press. (see HERE)
After all, the majority of the targeted and civilian victims of U.S. bombings in the region were Sunni Muslims (see HERE and HERE), in part because ISIS is made up of extremist Sunni Muslims.
Even still, this inadvertently exacerbated the ongoing conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims (see HERE), stoked centuries old religious wars, and unwittingly encouraged moderate Sunni's to align with ISIS. (see above)
If that wasn't enough, U.S. backed Kurdish rebels have been accused of "ethnic cleansing" of Sunni Muslims, including moderates. (see HERE)
Also, Russian backed Assad (Shia) forces have likewise targeted Sunni's, understandably engendering outrage among Sunni moderates. (see HERE and HERE and HERE)
In short, moderate Sunni's in Syria and elsewhere have been shoved between several large boulders and a hard place, with several of those boulders made in Obama's U.S.A.
Why is this relevant to the Syrian refugee crisis?
Well, a primary reason for Syrians displacement is their desperate need to get out from between the boulders and hard places. (see HERE) And, not surprising, the majority of the refugees are Sunni (see HERE and HERE), and the majority of refugees admitted to the U.S. have been Sunni Muslim, particularly after Oct. 1st. (see HERE and HERE)
What this means is that a large number of Syrians have become refugees in part because of Obama's failed policies, which likely doesn't sit well with those refugees, encouraging them to sympathize with ISIS--i.e. Obama's failed policies in the Mideast have, in reality, then, have been a recruitment tool for ISIS, even among the refugees. In fact, 13% of the refugees have admitted to being sympathetic to ISIS, and this prior to the Paris attacks and movement to block refugees in the u.s..(see HERE) So, Obama's recent threat about recruitment is a false and deflective projection.
Third, if resisting admittance of Syrian refugees to the U. S.. is supposedly a recruiting tool, then the Obama administration is guilty there as well since they only permitted a paltry 2,000 out of 4 million refugees over the last 4 years. (see HERE and HERE)
And, many liberal European countries have recently blocked Syrian refugees. (see HERE and HERE) Are they causing recruitment as well?
Fourth, it is not as if the U.S. hasn't provided considerable aid to the Syrian refugee crisis, to the tune of 2 to 4 billion dollars. (see HERE) I would think that the refugees would prefer funding that enables them to remain in areas better suited to their culture rather than shipped thousands of miles and across oceans to a foreign and relatively immoral and non-Muslim land.
Finally, with that having been said, here is what scholars and journalists assert as the real means behind ISIS and Islamic extremist recruitment. (see HERE and HERE) and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE):
Recruiters for ISIS and other extremist groups, themselves, provide their own take: (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
Here is an actual ISIS recruitment video. You will be interested to see which American is featured front-and-center: ISIS Recruitment Video
Following the bombings in Paris and the cautionary reaction by Republicans and Democrats (see HERE), the Liberal propaganda mill has whipped up the emotional blackmail and attempted to selectively smear Conservatives as anti-refugee, unconstitutional (as if Liberals care about the Constitution), and frightening to refugees who have already entered the states. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
However, for more than a quarter century, Republicans haven't balked at accepting refugees and asylees, and they have even actively brought them into the country. Over 3 million refugees from throughout the world have been accepted into the U.S. since 1975 (see HERE). About a half million were admitted while Bush was in office. (see HERE) More than 27,000 refugees from Iraq and Iran were admitted from 2006 to 2008. (ibid) About 70,000 were admitted in 2012 (only 31 Syrian refugees--see HERE) and also 2013 (only 36 Syrian refugees--see HERE). In 2014, 121,200 refugees were admitted. (approximately 30 Syrian refugees--see HERE), second only to Germany. (ibid) Thus far in 2015, there have been about 70,000 (or 57,300) refugees admitted, with 1,682 from Syria, and 10,900 from Iraq. (see HERE and HERE)
In fact, as pointed out in my previous post on this issue (see HERE), around 2000 Syrian refuges were admitted to the U.S. without opposition,, and various conservative organizations were active in bringing them here--though prior to 2015, President Obama only allowed about 100 Syrian refugees into the country. (see HERE) Was he being "shameful."
So, Republicans clearly aren't anti-refugee, but are reasonably concerned about the high risk of terrorists embedding themselves among the refugees and stealthily entering the country.
And, they aren't alone. As indicated above, there are not a few Democrats who are expressing caution, And, more than half the countries in the European Union refused or opted out of the EU asylum quotas.(see HERE and HERE and HERE) Also, the UK has blocked refugees since Sept 2015. (see HERE)
Are they "anti-refugee" and "shameful" and deserving of ridicule?
Of course not. The President and his Liberal cohorts are playing politics with make-believe.
Besides, no one has objected to the $4.5 billion in U.S. aid to the Syrian refugees. (see HERE)
Here is a graph of refuges admitted over the years:
Here is a proportional map of the states in which those refugees have settled--note how they are congregated in Conservative "fl:y-over" country, the Inter-mountain West.
Here is one source for how many Syrian refugees have been admitted in the U.S. since 2011 (it differs somewhat from what I quoted earlier, but not significantly):
Here is a map of where Syrian refugees have already been place in the U.S.
Here is where future Syrian Refugees are likely to be placed
