Yesterday, while visiting the TPPF’s Policy Orientation conference, I learned of a highly unusual Oil and Natural Gas Information Collection Request, issued by the EPA to owners and operators of practically all oils & gas production wells in December 2016. Continue reading EPA tries to do Maximum Damage in Three Months
Attention of all interested parties: any pretense by Barack Obama to “ratify” the Paris climate pact is and will be null and void.
18 U.S. Code § 1366 – Destruction of an energy facility
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully damages or attempts or conspires to damage the property of an energy facility … or damages or attempts or conspires to damage the property of an energy facility in any amount and causes or attempts or conspires to cause a significant interruption or impairment of a function of an energy facility, shall be punishable by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both.
Continue reading Damaging Property of Energy Facility is Federal Crime
The question from my September 2015 post “Carbon Pollution” – tongue slip or deep ecology influence? seems to have an answer. Obama and his administration have cited “carbon pollution” on many occasions, so it is not a slip of the tongue. Continue reading What is “Carbon Pollution” in ObamaClimate?
Following overt instructions from foreign entities, including at least one country in a state of war with the United States (North Korea), the Obama administration has launched an attack on the United States Armed Forces. According to the Washington Times:
The Pentagon is ordering the top brass to incorporate climate change into virtually everything they do, from testing weapons to training troops to war planning to joint exercises with allies.
Prioritize “climate change” over what? Over defeating enemies? Over the lives of the soldiers? Over the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Continue reading Obama orders commanders to prioritize climate change
A talk that retired Rear Admiral David Titley gave at the Senate hearing Data or Dogma (where he represented the Dogma) brought my attention to a dark entity, misleadingly calling itself the “American Security Project.” Within this project, Titley is charged with promoting climate alarmism and forcing the UN climate consensus on America.
Some parts of the ASP’s website make it look more like the North Korea Security Project. One article, which appeared after another North Korean nuclear test, is an outright advocacy for North Korea:
Basically, it is incredibly unlikely that North Korea will use its nuclear weapons prior to the outbreak of a new Korean war, which the country has no interest in starting.
Incredibly unlikely? Has no interest in starting a war? Are we talking about the same North Korea? In 2010, North Korea sank the South Korean vessel Cheonan and shelled Greater Yeonpyeong island, killing 50 men in both incidents. In 2013, North Korea threatened to launch a “pre-emptive” nuclear strike on the US. If that is not “interest in starting a war”, then what is? Continue reading Climate Alarmism and North Korea
Is it normal for the President of the United States of America to threaten the People with military force? In his State of the Union speech, Obama said:
Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You will be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military … and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it. (link)
He said this only a few hours after allowing Iran to capture two Navy boats and their crew, to take the Navy sailors prisoners and compel a female captive to wear a hijab, and to force them all to kneel before Iranian National Guardsmen.
I know that before Obama, it was other way around: the armed forces defended America against foreign threats, instead of being pawns to “debate” their own citizens. This “debate offer” is something from the repertoire of African dictators, but even Obama’s fellow dictators do not threaten their subjects so overtly on behalf of foreign powers. And I doubt that many of them use weasel words like “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide in the air is not pollution, but plants’ nutrients, and of course carbon constitutes most of the dry mass of a human body.
Will this horror end after the November 2016 elections? Judging by the current trends, I am not so sure there will be elections at all.