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