Posts Tagged ‘poltics’

MSM Tries to Make Hurricane Irma Political By Attacking Rush Limbaugh

September 8, 2017

hurricaneirma

“You’ve got to listen to your local officials — this storm surge can kill you. My biggest concern is people don’t understand the amount of potential storm surge. This can cover homes. And we just haven’t seen this. We didn’t see this in Andrew.” – Florida Governor Rick Scott

Here’s the latest, as of last night, on Hurricane Irma from wunderground.com

A hurricane watch and a storm surge watch are up for Florida, from the Florida Keys to Jupiter Inlet, as Category 5 Hurricane Irma heads steadily west-northwest at 16 mph. Hurricane Irma delivered a devastating blow to the Lesser Antilles islands of Barbuda, Saint Barthelemy, Anguilla, and Saint Martin/Sint Maarten early Wednesday morning, then plowed directly though the British Virgin Islands on Wednesday afternoon, packing top winds of 185 mph during the entire rampage. Ten deaths are being blamed on the storm—six on St. Martin, two on Saint Barthelemy, one on Barbuda, and one on Anguilla. Damage photos from the islands show destruction characteristic of an EF4 tornado, and Irma’s 185 mph winds were indeed in the EF4 range of tornado wind speeds. The first island Irma hit, Barbuda (population 2,000) was judged “practically uninhabitable” by the prime minister after 90% of the buildings were damaged and 60% of the population was left homeless.

Irma slightly weaker on Thursday afternoon
Irma has been weakening slightly today. Peak winds fell from 185 mph at 1 am EDT Thursday to 180 mph at 2 am, then to 175 mph at 11 am—still solidly in the Category 5 range. The minimum pressure rose from 914 mb at midnight to 921 mb at 11 am. The most recent 11:56 am EDT eye report from the Hurricane Hunters found another bump up in pressure, to 923 mb. Infrared satellite loops show that the heavy thunderstorms that surround Irma’s eye are no longer as symmetrical or intense. This is particularly true on the storm’s west side, where some moderate wind shear near 10 knots is affecting the storm. Irma’s weakening is also likely due to an eyewall replacement cycle and interaction with the large island of Hispaniola, to the south of Irma. Total precipitable water loops from Thursday, for example, showed that Hispaniola was blocking the inflow of moisture from the south, reducing the amount of moisture in Irma’s core. Irma’s circulation is also pulling air across and then down the high mountains of the island into the core of the hurricane; the downslope winds dry as they descend, injecting more dry air into Irma.

Despite this weakening, even 175 mph winds are catastrophic, and Irma will cause extreme damage in the Turks and Caicos Islands when it moves through on Thursday afternoon, and in the southeast Bahamas on Thursday night and Friday. Parts of central and eastern Cuba and northern Hispaniola may receive localized rainfall of up to 15 inches as Irma passes by. Storm surge levels could reach as high as 20 feet in the Southeastern and Central Bahamas, and as high as 10 feet on parts of Cuba’s northern coast.

Irma maintained 185 mph maximum winds for an extraordinary 37 hours, the longest for any tropical cyclone on record, globally, in the satellite era (since 1966.) The previous record was Super Typhoon Haiyan in the Northwest Pacific, at 24 hours, according to Dr. Phil Klotzbach.

Forecast models now show Irma to be tracking up the middle of the state of Florida. Gov. Rick Scott and state authorities are doing every thing they can to get people to evacuate out of harm’s way. It is a Herculean effort which they are making and I hope that it results in a lot of saved lives.

Meanwhile, the Main Stream Media has been seeking every opportunity to turn this Natural Disaster into something political, including making false claims about the Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, who lives in and broadcasts live from West Palm Beach, Florida every weekday.

Per usual, they have accused Rush of all sorts of stuff, including discouraging people from evacuating.

But here, allow me to let him tell you about the matter…

Here’s a summary of what I said to anybody in the path of this hurricane: Take emotion out of the equation. I explained how severe weather events are opportunities for big ratings boosts in the media and explained how it happens. I explained how severe weather events impact retailers and how some retailers are smart enough to coordinate advertising with television stations. It happens! It doesn’t mean it’s bad. It happens. It helps to explain things. And that’s all I do.

Severe weather events are opportunities to advance political agendas, and they are. You can’t miss all of the talk from Harvey on about climate change and people trying to persuade people that it’s behind all this, when it isn’t. I explained there are several hurricane models. They all show numerous and differing possible tracks.

I said I’m not a meteorologist. I said I don’t come to you as an expert. I’m simply telling you I’ve lived in Florida 20 years, I’ve developed my own system for analyzing the data and that I do and that I share it with you. Hurricane tracks can change quickly, unexpectedly. Hurricane Andrew, Category 5, went to Homestead, Florida. That was the last thing it was expected to do. There was no forecast that had it going to Homestead, Florida, and at the last minute it jogged west and went into Homestead, Florida. Took everybody surprise.

And these things can happen because all kinds of different atmospheric conditions are in play here, and a change in any one of them can change a forecast track, not the fault of the forecasters. It’s so complex, climate, atmospherics, meteorology, it’s so complex it can’t be predicted with certitude other than six to 12 hours out. It is not an exact science. And I said if you’re panicked that you can’t find bottled water. Turn on the tap.

I didn’t tell anybody not to drink water. I said there’s a thing in your kitchen called a sink and above that is a thing called a faucet, and there’s either one handle or two, one for hot, one for cold, or you turn the one handle in the right direction, bammo. Until the water gets shut off because of the hurricane you’ve got water out the wazoo in your house. You could fill up the bathtub. You know what you could do? You could get Ziploc trash bags and partially fill them, like 75, 80% of the way, and put them in your freezer. Just load your freezer.

There’s any number of ways to come up with water if you can’t find any bottles at a grocery store. That is all I said. But major American news outlets are out saying I told people not to drink water, you don’t need to buy water, there’s no dire emergency, there’s no dire consequences, it’s all being made up by forecasters because of global warming. I didn’t say anything was made up.

…It is being reported I’m telling people not to drink water, not to worry about it, nothing’s happening; the hurricane’s overblown.

I didn’t say anything of the sort. In fact, the environmentalist wackos should even be placed me. They hate plastic! Plastic bottles, they think, end up in landfill and they’re… Well, they come from petroleum, you know, which they also hate. Here I’m urging people not to use plastic. The environmentalist wackos should be applauding me, patting me on the back. They should be thanking me for my environmental concern.

Of course, this is nothing new as far as the MSM is concerned.

They have been attacking Rush Limbaugh for years.

But, what gets me is that they are so hard up for stories that may vilify him, that they will exaggerate and make up stuff.

I suppose if they are unethical enough to make up Fake News Stories about the President of the United States of America, then making them up about the host of the top syndicated radio program in America would be a piece of cake to them.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, my wife told me last night about the story of an elderly lady who had gone into a Lowe’s in Florida to get a generator before the hurricane hits, because her husband is on oxygen and would not survive without one.

She was told that they were out of generators and she became very upset.

A gentleman saw this and gave her the generator that he had just picked up.

That story touched my heart.

You see, I have relatives in the panhandle and my wife has a wonderful uncle in Orlando, whom she was able to reach by phone yesterday. He lives with his son and daughter-in-law. They will be boarding up their house and evacuating, like hundreds of thousands of other Americans.

And, that’s what it is all about. Americans being faced with a natural disaster beyond our control. We didn’t cause it. Man does not have that power. Nor is it a political issue.

Rather, this is a matter of survival.

And, a time for preparation…and prayer.

May God protect all those in the path of Hurricane Irma.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Advertisements

A KJ Sunday Morning Reflection: With Our Country Being Intentionally Politically Torn Apart, Who Are We Actually Fighting?

July 16, 2017

bible-american-flag1

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. – Edmund Burke

If you, like myself , are a Political Junkie, and spend any time at all on Internet Political Website comments sections and political chat boards, you might think that American Christians are an endangered species.
Far from it.
According to a Gallup Poll taken in 2015, 3/4ths of our country believe that Jesus Christ is their Personal Savior and proudly proclaim themselves to be Christians.
So, if Americans believe in the Son of God, does that mean that they believe in the Fallen Angel, formerly known as Lucifer, also?
You betcha.
 In September of 2013, YouGov.com conducted a poll which showed that almost six in ten Americans believe that Satan is real, and more than half of Americans believe that people can be possessed by demons.

Is all this upheaval our nation is feverishly attempting to recover from, with no help from “The Resistances”, “Antifa”, , or whatever you want to call the Anti-American immature idiots, due to some sort of Satanic Influence attempting to tip the scales in the fight between Good and Evil, across our land?

A man, who would be considered a cornball by the standards of today’s Socially-Liberal Fiscally Conservative Liberals, Moderates, and “Libertarians”, wrote a prophetic analysis of today’s current events.

This speech was broadcast by legendary ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey on April 3, 1965:

If I were the Devil . . . I mean, if I were the Prince of Darkness, I would of course, want to engulf the whole earth in darkness. I would have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree, so I should set about however necessary to take over the United States. I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. In the ears of the young marrieds, I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to say after me: “Our Father, which art in Washington” . . .

If I were the devil, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull an uninteresting. I’d threaten T.V. with dirtier movies and vice versa. And then, if I were the devil, I’d get organized. I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing and less work, because idle hands usually work for me. I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. And I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects but neglect to discipline emotions . . . let those run wild. I would designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts in the land and I would get preachers to say “she’s right.” With flattery and promises of power, I could get the courts to rule what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography, and thus, I would evict God from the courthouse, and then from the school house, and then from the houses of Congress and then, in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and I would deify science because that way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them.

If I were Satan, I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg, and the symbol of Christmas, a bottle. If I were the devil, I would take from those who have and I would give to those who wanted, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And then, my police state would force everybody back to work. Then, I could separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines, and objectors in slave camps. In other words, if I were Satan, I’d just keep on doing what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey, Good Day.

John Adams, the second President of these United States, delivered the following message to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798:

Gentleman,

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier, General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted. In the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the World; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Noah Webster: (EVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA”), wrote

[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.129

The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.

All the… evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.131

[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.

[T]he Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society – the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men.

[T]he Christian religion… is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government… I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence.

Are the Powers of Darkness winning?

For example. if  you look at Horror Movies nowadays, all of them seem to seek to glorify the Powers of Darkness….and they seem to be very popular with young Americans.

Why is the Occult, including Satan and his Demons so fascinating to impressionable Americans?

People who take the existence of  Satan lightly, eventually wind up in some sort of trouble, and those who worship Satan wind up in even greater trouble.

Back in the 1960s, the late, beautiful actress Jayne Mansfield posed for a series of publicity pictures with the Head Priest of the Church of Satan, Anton LaVey. The pictures showing her with LaVey, included several shots of taking their version of Communion, simulating drinking blood from a goblet, offered by the priest. She even wore a pink and black medallion of Satan and the goat-headed Baphomet to the 1966 San Francisco Film Festival. Later, the beautiful actress died in a freak car accident in which she was decapitated.

Now, far be it from me to link one to the other. That is up for you to decide for yourself.

Is all this upheaval our nation is currently facing, caused by the Democrats, the Propaganda Arm, the MSM, and their young minions, due to some sort of Satanic Influence attempting to tip the scales in the fight between Good and Evil, across our land?

The reason that our nation is facing the difficulties we are is the belief by those who proclaim themselves to be the “smartest people in the room”, that they are above the old-fashioned, passe notions of morality and ethics, good and evil, and the Sovereignty of God.

They have made a grave mistake.

Evil exists and these fools opened the door to Satan in our society a long time ago.

When it all comes crashing down around them, what are they going to say?

The Devil made me do it?

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. – Ephesians 6:12

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Goes to Paris Climate Change Summit To Pledge OUR Money. Congress to Fight.

November 29, 2015

untitled (12)

The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, is about to spend a boatload of American Taxpayers’ money on a psuedo-science that the majority of Americans do not believe is an important issue at all.

The New York Times reports the following

WASHINGTON — At a joint news conference here Tuesday with President François Hollande of France, President Obama veered from his focus on the terrorist attacks in Paris to bring up the huge international gathering beginning in the French capital on Monday to hammer out a global response to climate change.

“What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children,” Mr. Obama said of the climate conference.

The segue brought mockery, even castigation, from the political right, but it was a reminder of the importance Mr. Obama places on climate change in shaping his legacy. During his 2012 re-election campaign, he barely mentioned global warming, but the issue has become a hallmark of his second term.

And on Sunday night he arrives in Paris, hoping to make climate policy the signature environmental achievement of his, and perhaps any, presidency.

“He comes to Paris with a moral authority that no other president has had on the issue of climate change,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University who noted that Mr. Obama’s domestic climate efforts already stand alone in American history. “No other president has had a climate change policy. It makes him unique.”

In Paris, Mr. Obama will join more than 120 world leaders to kick off two weeks of negotiations aimed at forging a new climate change accord that would, for the first time, commit almost every country on Earth to lowering its greenhouse gas pollution. All year, Mr. Obama’s negotiators have worked behind the scenes to fashion a Paris deal.

Crucial to Mr. Obama’s leverage has been the release of his domestic climate change regulations, which he then pushed other countries to emulate. So far, at least 170 countries have put forth emission reduction plans.

But even as Mr. Obama presses for a deal in Paris, it faces steep obstacles, not least the legal and legislative assault on his own regulations at home. During the course of the Paris talks, Republicans in Congress are planning a series of votes to fight Mr. Obama’s climate agenda. More than half the states are suing the administration on the legality of his climate plan. And all the Republican presidential candidates have said that they would undo the regulations if elected.

On Nov. 19, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, chairman of the environment committee and the Senate’s most vocal skeptic on climate change science, and Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming sent a letter to Mr. Obama, signed by 35 other senators, promising to block the funding for any climate deal unless the Paris pact is sent to Congress for ratification. A vote on the deal would fail in the Republican-controlled Congress.

“Our constituents are worried that the pledges you are committing the United States to will strengthen foreign economies at the expense of American workers,” the senators wrote. “They are also skeptical about sending billions of their hard-earned dollars to government officials from developing nations.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Obama is pushing forward. He unveiled the rules on curbing heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions with a tight timeline, ensuring that they would be finalized before he leaves office. He has raised the issue of climate change in dozens of speeches and with every recent visiting foreign leader. In Washington, a team of environmental lawyers is preparing to defend the rules in court, while at the State Department, climate envoys are in constant contact with their counterparts around the world

If his domestic regulations and a Paris accord withstand efforts to gut them, “climate change will become the heart and soul of his presidency,” Mr. Brinkley said.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why is Obama on this Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science his legacy?

1.  Appeasing the Gullible -Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. Obama’s got political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Obama needs to grasp for whatever national distraction he can come up with bringing in Syrian Refugees by the tens of thousand into our country, imbedded with possible Islamic Terrorists from ISIS, he desperately needs a distraction. The Planned Parenthood Attack in Colorado by a nut job, didn’t provide near enough cover.

4. Well, he sure can’t make his failed Foreign Policy his legacy.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder what argument Obama is going to present to these World Leaders that he is meeting with? 

Perhaps, he will present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ