The left seeks only plausible liars to lead them

There is no point in arguing that Hillary is being inconsistent, or that those who have accused her husband of rape have made a case that needs to be answered. Same with everything else about the lies that surround Clinton. No one believes her unless they desperately want to. But many of those who vote for the left now understand somewhere deep inside that everything they believe is wormeaten and rotten. If they are therefore to go on as before, they must find ways to shield themselves from the truth they will not confront. So they look for liars, and the better they are the more they seek them out. Clinton to Obama and to a different Clinton, with the media there to protect them at every turn. America and the West may crash and burn but they will keep their illusions at all cost. The applause at the end shows there are some who will never allow reality to intrude, but seeing how muted the applause was shows even among those who show up at Clinton event know that she is lying and her husband is as well. What she represents remains an unknown to me, but she is 50-50 to be the next president of the United States/

Obama is the cause of a problem of gargantuan proportions

From Roger Simon, From Paris to San Berdoo, Obama’s War on Western Civ Continues. How it would unfold was not predictable with any kind of detail. That it has come to this ought to be a surprise to no one who was paying attention.

America, and its trailing entities in Europe, has a problem now of gargantuan proportions. Barack Obama was and is precisely the wrong man, possibly the worst conceivable man, to be president of the United States at this point in history. No one more invidious could be invented.

Consider how, on hearing of the mass murders in San Bernardino, the first thing out of his mouth was … gun control. That is not just blindness. It’s something scarier — willfull distortion for evil political ends.

Consciously or unconsciously, probably both, this man seeks to destroy the very thing that nurtured him from Honolulu to the White House.

So now the game has changed and Islamic terror has reached our shores as never before, just as many have predicted. It has invaded our bourgeois neighborhoods, with the neighbor next door unwilling to a report a garage bomb factory for fear of being called racist. (This, too, is at the foot of Obama.) What, in the words of Lenin, is to be done?

But while Obama will no longer be president in 2017, the media and the Democrats will still be there, as dangerously empty-headed as ever.

A padded cell is even safer

Jay Nordinger has gone Underground at Brown and here’s what he found. He found that the university had set up a retreat for university students who might be traumatised by having to listen to a speaker they did not agree with. This is what they therefore did.

Students set up a safe space for those who might attend the debate and be shaken by something they heard. A “safe space”? Yes. This space, in the words of Judith Shulevitz, writing in the New York Times, was a room “equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma.”

What can anyone say about any of this?

Climate Hustle

There’s money in having oil to sell and there’s money in being opposed to the sale of oil. Funny world, and both sides have converge on Paris over the past fortnight. Oil money has been translated into ISIS while the global warming crowd are redirecting trillions into various projects that will deliver nothing other than wealth to those who could not possibly create it and never will. But they will certainly go through an enormous amount of this wealth in the process. The cretins marching in the street are encouraging the very outcomes that will keep themselves poor but make a very small proportion exceedingly rich.

Meanwhile, Skeptical Climate Documentary Set to Rock UN Climate Summit – ‘Climate Hustle’ To Have Red Carpet Premiere in Paris. You can go to the link for more, and there is quite a bit more. The one thing I am sure of is that the movie will not rock anything, but it will be nice for us to be aware of as we are being fleeced. Here I will only repeat the first comment on the thread.

Hope it is effective in explaining WHY it is a “hustle”, climate issues notwithstanding– because it isn’t about “climate” at all– it is about the use/abuse of “climate” from schools to political circles, in propaganda form, to beat over the heads of both the unsuspecting and the skeptical, ultimately for pushing a global governance agenda. And in the process, corrupting honest scientific debate, leading directly to the destruction of the preimminence of scientific leadership in America, when deference to so-called United Nations climate concensus is given. Make no mistake, it corrupts the ENTIRETY of the scientific community, by a relatively small, vocal, and cult-like fanaticism.

Or to quote from another of the comments: “Funny how the ‘cure’ is the re-distribution of wealth.”

The meeting will generate emissions equivalent to 21,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide

It’s hard to believe people treat this stuff seriously, but there you are. It’s how our elites recognise each other. It’s their form of a secret handshake. They have to know it’s nonsense, but if they are going to cream off more of our money for their uses, this is the perfect set up. Yet even as our leaders head off to Paris for a couple of weeks of high living paid for by us, we do see this:

Decade long ice age predicted as sun ‘hibernates’…
FLASHBACK: Temp data fiddling ‘biggest science scandal ever’…

The evidence just doesn’t seem to matter since the evidence won’t be evident for fifty years.

The 21,000 metric tons comes from The Telegraph in London and this doesn’t include any of the travel. I won’t link because it’s too depressing.

The cruelty of the ready acceptance of climate change

Climate change is a belief system for the smug and oblivious. It is neither believed nor practised in any part of the world in which its population remains at the $10 a day level, which accounts for a major proportion of the world’s population. This is an interview of Indur Goklany, an Indian climate analyst, conducted by Ralf Bodelier and translated from Dutch. The article is titled: Our Biggest Problem is Poverty. I share Goklany’s disgust with the mean-spirited and hard-hearted representatives of the first world who are doing all they can to raise production costs across the world, which in their ignorance means doing all they can to lower living standards across the world by adding to the cost of energy. This is from the interview, which is long but needs reading. It is especially useful because he raises the immorality of the global warming brigade.

Many think climate change is the main problem we face today. Apparently you see that differently.

‘I do. Despite the dramatic reduction in poverty because of economic development, the biggest problems we face today are still extreme poverty and its consequences – hunger, premature death, disease and an impaired environment. Extreme poverty is the fundamental problem of the moment. If we reduce poverty first, we will reduce these other problems. It is therefore good news that the elimination of poverty is still number one in the list of new development goals of the United Nations. ‘

What is the connection between alleviating poverty and your plea for fossil energy?

‘Between 1981 and 2012, the number of people in absolute poverty declined by over a billion people worldwide as the rate of absolute poverty declined by almost three-quarters, from 54 percent to 15 percent. The vast majority of these reductions occurred in South and East Asia – think of India and China. What happened? They got wealthier, because of economic growth fueled literally by fossil fuels. This is why they are also major contributors today to CO2 today. It is not rocket science – you are poor, you need to get richer, but for that you need access to cheap and reliable energy. And today energy is, for practical purposes, synonymous with fossil fuels. However, there are still almost a billion people living in absolute poverty today. Ensuring that they have the means for economic development, which means ensuring they have access to cheap and reliable energy, should be our first concern. We have no idea how pathetic it is to not have energy, although I can still remember from my childhood in India. People with no access to electricity or any of the conveniences we take for granted, cooking their meals using dung, all the while inhaling the noxious fumes from the burning dung; women and children walking miles to fetch water; when the sun set so did all productive activity including studying and working because lighting was rare and expensive; streets without light; the fact that any action took physical effort and was time consuming, because gasoline, diesel and electric powered machines and appliances weren’t available.

Anyone who can turn on a light by the flick of a switch who then seek to deny our technologies to others are anti-social scum. They are vicious, cruel and ignorant; the virtue they believe they have in denying our technologies to the rest of the world makes them some of the most despicable people who have ever lived.

Which is the objective and which the obstacle?

An article that stands out for providing a link between the policies on open borders found across the world that can otherwise make no sense. It has George Soros at its centre. Read it and see what you make of it yourself. That I also believe what I call progressive internationalism is the core of the problem allows me to entertain Soros’s role seriously. The central theme:

The suspicion thickens that Mrs. Merkel’s insane and politically suicidal open-border strategy has been forced upon her by furtive overlords in league with the ghoul, who owns secret Stasi dossiers whose publication would topple her right away and even send her to jail. Small wonder, therefore, that the resistance to her policies becomes always more pronounced. The brave Mr. Orban of Hungary recently declared that “George Soros is perhaps the strongest example of those who support anything that weakens nation states, they support everything that changes the traditional European lifestyle. Immigration and multiculturalism are endangering Europe’s Christian roots and creating parallel societies. Europe is, after all, the land of democracy and it is impossible to go against the will of the people for a long time and without arguments. If we stick to our Christian values, Europe can be saved, but only if we take seriously the traditions, the Christian roots and all the values that are the basis of our European civilisation.”

Which caused Mr. Soros to declare from the depths of his great humanitarian heart that the Hungarian leader “treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”

I found this particularly intriguing.

Proof of Soros’s involvement has been abundant, most prominently a guide printed in Arabic by a subdivision of his “Open Society Foundations” calling itself, conveniently, “Welcome to Europe.” Distributed probably by the tens of thousands, it informs potential invaders of how to go about in the most effective way. It also contains maps, tips, and phone numbers of organizations and government welfare agencies that are supposed to help once they arrive in Europe.

Soros is not alone but he does have the will. That Obama is fed by Soros with both funding and ideas seems plausible. The hatred for the West is a view he shares with many others. But unlike the rest, he is in a position to effect an incredible amount of harm. Here is Soros’s statement on Rebuilding the Asylum System.

The European Union needs to accept responsibility for the lack of a common asylum policy, which has transformed this year’s growing influx of refugees from a manageable problem into yet another political crisis. Each member state has selfishly focused on its own interests, often acting against the interests of others. This precipitated panic among asylum seekers, the general public, and the authorities responsible for law and order. Asylum seekers have been the main victims.

The EU needs a comprehensive plan to respond to the crisis, one that reasserts effective governance over the flows of asylum-seekers so that they take place in a safe, orderly way, and at a pace that reflects Europe’s capacity to absorb them. To be comprehensive, the plan has to extend beyond the borders of Europe. It is less disruptive and much less expensive to maintain potential asylum-seekers in or close to their present location.

As the origin of the current crisis is Syria, the fate of the Syrian population has to be the first priority. But other asylum seekers and migrants must not be forgotten. Similarly, a European plan must be accompanied by a global response, under the authority of the United Nations and involving its member states. This would distribute the burden of the Syrian crisis over a larger number of states, while also establishing global standards for dealing with the problems of forced migration more generally.

Here are the six components of a comprehensive plan.

First, the EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly – a principle that a qualified majority finally established at last Wednesday’s summit.

Adequate financing is critical. The EU should provide €15,000 ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs – and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states. It can raise these funds by issuing long-term bonds using its largely untapped AAA borrowing capacity, which will have the added benefit of providing a justified fiscal stimulus to the European economy.

It is equally important to allow both states and asylum-seekers to express their preferences, using the least possible coercion. Placing refugees where they want to go – and where they are wanted – is a sine qua non of success.

Second, the EU must lead the global effort to provide adequate funding to Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey to support the four million refugees currently living in those countries.

Thus far, only a fraction of the funding needed for even basic care has been raised. If education, training, and other essential needs are included, the annual costs are at least €5,000 per refugee, or €20 billion. EU aid today to Turkey, though doubled last week, still amounts to just €1 billion. In addition, the EU also should help create special economic zones with preferred trade status in the region, including in Tunisia and Morocco, to attract investment and generate jobs for both locals and refugees.

The EU would need to make an annual commitment to frontline countries of at least €8-10 billion, with the balance coming from the United States and the rest of the world. This could be added to the amount of long-term bonds issued to support asylum-seekers in Europe.

Third, the EU must immediately start building a single EU Asylum and Migration Agency and eventually a single EU Border Guard. The current patchwork of 28 separate asylum systems does not work: it is expensive, inefficient, and produces wildly inconsistent results in determining who qualifies for asylum. The new agency would gradually streamline procedures; establish common rules for employment and entrepreneurship, as well as consistent benefits; and develop an effective, rights-respecting return policy for migrants who do not qualify for asylum.

Fourth, safe channels must be established for asylum-seekers, starting with getting them from Greece and Italy to their destination countries. This is very urgent in order to calm the panic. The next logical step is to extend safe avenues to the frontline region, thereby reducing the number of migrants who make the dangerous Mediterranean crossing. If asylum-seekers have a reasonable chance of ultimately reaching Europe, they are far more likely to stay where they are. This will require negotiating with frontline countries, in cooperation with the UN Refugee Agency, to establish processing centers there – with Turkey as the priority.

The operational and financial arrangements developed by the EU should be used to establish global standards for the treatment of asylum-seekers and migrants. This is the fifth piece of the comprehensive plan.

Finally, to absorb and integrate more than a million asylum seekers and migrants a year, the EU needs to mobilize the private sector – NGOs, church groups, and businesses – to act as sponsors. This will require not only sufficient funding, but also the human and IT capacity to match migrants and sponsors.

The exodus from war-torn Syria should never have become a crisis. It was long in the making, easy to foresee, and eminently manageable by Europe and the international community. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has now also produced a six-point plan to address the crisis. But his plan, which subordinates the human rights of asylum-seekers and migrants to the security of borders, threatens to divide and destroy the EU by renouncing the values on which it was built and violating the laws that are supposed to govern it.

The EU must respond with a genuinely European asylum policy that will put an end to the panic and the unnecessary human suffering.

Like a bad Monty Python sketch

This is from the facebook page of Faisal Saeed al Mutar which has been posted at Instapundit:

It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic terrorist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the terrorists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility. It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch:

“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”

“No you didn’t.”

“Wait, what? Yes we did…”

“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”

“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”

“No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”

“Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”

“Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”

“What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”

“Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”

“Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”

“No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”

“OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?”

I suppose it’s meant as satire but seems all too much like reality to me.

Global warming and free speech

From John Hinderaker at Powerline, estimating that 27% of Democrats are totalitarians:

Rasmussen Reports asked likely U.S. voters whether the government should criminally prosecute those who don’t go along with the global warming scare. This was the precise question:

Should the government investigate and prosecute scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming?

In response, 27% of Democrats called for prosecuting global warming realists. (Remarkably, 11% of Republicans did, too.) Happily, 63% say the debate on global warming is not yet over, while 68% oppose criminal prosecutions. So that 5% difference must represent people who are in favor of freedom of speech.

No wonder that, as Rasmussen also notes, only 20% of Americans say that we enjoy “true freedom of speech,” while 73% “think instead that Americans have to be careful not to say something politically incorrect to avoid getting in trouble.” These are sad times for those who value liberty.

This story is paired at Drudge with this: Antarctic Ice is Growing, Even Hit a ‘Record,’ But Evening News Shows Hype Melting Arctic Instead.

Media outlets predicted an “ice-free” Arctic time and again, and so far have been wrong. But with all the panic about melting glaciers, or sea ice, or ice at the poles the media have reported, one would imagine good news about increasing ice would at least get some attention.

Not from the broadcast networks anyway. In the past year, they’ve ignored data showing increasing ice in Antarctica, presumably because it did not fit perfectly with their climate agenda, instead choosing to hype melting Arctic ice repeatedly.

The media is the message, or the absence of the message. Americans with their round-the-clock news coverage may be among the most poorly informed people on the planet.