JERRY BROWN, THERE’S A REASON HE’S CALLED ‘MOONBEAM’…

I think we can all agree that there is very little doubt that Gov. Jerry ‘Moonbeam’ Brown is most definitely a card-carrying, lifetime member of the John Kerry-Heinz group: ‘The Amalgamated Association of Climate Change Morons’.  And it was just this past Wednesday that he once again made it quite clear that he is nothing if not a true believer.  I can now declare with some degree of certainty, that Jerry is a raving lunatic that should be put away in a nice comfortable padded cell somewhere as a matter of public safety, before he does further harm to the residents of his once prosperous state. 

And what adds further support to this particular recommendation of mine is the fact that it was on this past Wednesday night that old ‘Moonbeam’, in what has been described by those in attendance as being something akin to a hyperbolic rant, informed students, as well as faculty, at the Ecole Normale Superieure University in Paris that climate change could be compared to nuclear war.  Now if that doesn’t make it clear that ‘Moonbeam’ is missing some critical marbles, then I’m not sure what might.  So as one can very plainly see, ‘Moonbeam’ has clearly gone round the proverbial bend. 

So anyway, it’s was according to The Sacramento Bee that ‘Moonbeam’ was said to have hyperventilated to the point where he nearly had a stroke.  And it was in the process of his coming completely unhinged that he said, “We have to be able to imagine the horrors that might unfold, and then be able to take steps to prevent it, delay it, minimize it. Through this Paris conference, my hope is that these conversations about a horror, which is the radical disruption of the climate, that can pass over into a confrontation, a focusing, a facing of this other great threat, the nuclear danger.” 

Citing his irrational fear regarding a potential nuclear confrontation between the United States and Russia, or a separate exchange between India and Pakistan, Brown warned, “Terrorism killing people is a horror. But terrorists getting nuclear material is even a greater horror. And there are literally hundreds of sites with nuclear materials of one kind or another sitting around, with various degrees of containment or security.”  Brown said that the efforts among various countries globally to cut greenhouse gas emissions could be turned to fighting terrorism and the threat of nuclear war.

This is not exactly the first time that old ‘Moonbeam’ has taken it upon himself to liken ‘climate change’ to nuclear war.  He has a rather long history of postulating such nonsense, most recently having done so at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 70th anniversary Doomsday Clock Symposium in November in Chicago.  It was there that he intoned, “I do want to talk about climate change, and I think there’s a connection there with the nuclear arms race: They both have catastrophic consequences; they both are such that they don’t capture the popular imagination right now.”

And then it was also last July, when at the Vatican, that ‘Moonbeam’ also saw fit to take it upon himself to issue a rather apocalyptic harangue about climate change, vehemently protesting, “We don’t even know how far we’ve gone, or if we’ve gone over the edge. There are tipping points, feedback loops. This is not some linear set of problems that we can predict. We have to take measures against an uncertain future which may well be something no one ever wants. We are talking about extinction. We are talking about climate regimes that have not been seen for tens of millions of years.”

So it would appear that maybe all of the ‘climate change’ alarmists just might be on to something here.  I mean maybe, just maybe, ‘climate change’, or at least the mind-numbing hysteria that it is actually taking place, may actually be hazardous to your health.  Because if ‘Moonbeam’ can be brought to the edge of having a stroke simply because most Americans see Islamic terror as more of a threat than ‘climate change’, and thereby refuse to assign the same level of importance to this cockamamie theory as do so many on the left, then, maybe it can then be seen as life threatening.   

THERE ARE THOSE RARE VOICES OF REASON WITHIN THE BLACK COMMUNITY…

It’s a very rare occasion, indeed, when one hears from within the black community voices that possess the necessary courage to speak out againt government dependency and how it is that that dependency has come to so thoroughly decimate the black community.  It’s one of those voices that belongs to the Rev. Cecil Blye, senior pastor at More Grace Ministries in Louisville, Ky.  And it was at a press conference earlier this week, the purpose of which was to announce a new initiative to help youth in the nation’s troubled inner cities, that Rev. Blye said federal policies designed to fight poverty in the black community have instead “destroyed” black families.

“The paradigm of government as parent has destroyed the black family and made black fatherhood irrelevant,” Blye said at the Stay True to America’s National Destiny (STAND) event at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.  And he then went on to say, “Our welfare policies have incentivized co-habitation, single motherhood, and unemployment.”  Blye, who is also the national vice president of STAND, said the destruction dates back to 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson ushered in what he called the “War on Poverty” designed to build a “Great Society.”  But one could very easily argue that destroying the black family is exactly what LBJ hoped to accomplish.

Rev. Blye said, “Fifty years ago President Johnson gave us the notion of the Great Society.”  He went on to say, “Fifty years later we see there can be no great society without great morality.”   He added, “Fifty years later we see there can be no Great Society when government involvement incentivizes family disintegration, making it more profitable to cohabit than to be married.”  Rev. Blye said, “We see fifty years later that there can be no Great Society when government involvement incentivizes joblessness making it impossible to make a judgment to take a low-skilled job when you’re making more money on the government dole.”

“We need to have an awakening,” Rev. Blye said. “We need an awakening that saves our cities by strengthening our families and incentivizing personal responsibility and enterprise.”  Blye said whether a child grows up to be healthy by avoiding drugs and criminal activities is much more likely when the father is the head of household, particularly for young black men who need positive role models.  And he’s right, but his assessment does come with a, ‘but’.  That ‘but’ being of course, that blacks essentially refuse to take control of their own destiny, choosing instead to relinquish that control to the political party with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Another one of those voices belongs to Rev. E.W. Jackson, who is founder and president of STAND, said the initiative, “Project Awakening: A Recovery Plan for American’s Inner Cities, will provide church-centered programs that address three issues affecting youth in American inner cities – culture, economics and education.” Rev. Jackson calls the initiative a “private-sector plan to rescue America’s inner cities” by teaching youth Christian values such as the importance of marriage in child-rearing, as well as educating and training young people for successful careers.  Rev. Jackson said he hopes the initiative will spread to include cities across the country.

These men prove that there are, in fact, voices of reason within the black community.  Sadly though, they are, more often than not, the voices that go ignored, or are simply drowned out, in favor of those more incendiary in nature and which are also the ones that preach nothing more than hate and victimization and who also work to further ingrain the sense of entitlement that has become so rampant within our minority communities.  Blacks in this country really are their own worst enemy.  Because when provided with a choice of listening to men like Rev. Blye or Rev. Jackson, or to ‘Rev’ Al Sharpton, ‘Rev’ ‘Jesse’ Jackson or ‘Minister’ Farrakhan, most blacks tend to choose the latter.

And yet why is it that most blacks would rather listen to the men like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or ‘Calypso Louie’ Farrakhan than to men like Rev. Blye or Rev. E.W. Jackson?   It is at the end of the day that blacks must come to realize that by making  such a choice they do themselves no favors.  Because they, and they alone, are the ones able to clean up their communities and demand that their people stop their wasteful lives and work to make something of themselves.  Only they can do it.  And if those in the black community truly do wish to create a better life for themselves and their families, they will need to break what is the strange hold of government dependency.

WHEN DID ‘GOP’ COME TO STAND FOR, ‘GROUP OF PUSSIES’…

Ya know, just once I wish there would be an instance to which I could point where the guys on our team showed just a little backbone by standing up to the Democrat leadership in Congress instead of running off like scared little wimps and cowering in the nearest corner.  And people wonder why it is that Donald Trump continues to kick ass in the polls.  When, exactly, did GOP come to mean, “Group of Pussies?”  Because that’s pretty much all that we now have in Congress.

And it was just yesterday that ‘Dingy Harry’ made yet another threat, saying, "Unless Republicans go along with Democrats, the government shuts down at midnight this Friday."   And he went on to say, "If we fail to meet that deadline, it will be another evidence of a Republican failure in leadership."  I think I’d just drop over dead if just once the Republican in Congress put the needs of the country above political expediency and stood up to this flaming asshole!

‘Dingy Harry’ went on to say that if Republicans fail to pass an omnibus appropriations bill by midnight on Dec. 11 -- a date that they themselves picked -- it will be because they continue to attach their "ideological agenda" to the must-pass omnibus.  Now what the Hell is thus asshole talking about?  Isn’t that the very same thing that ‘Dingy Harry’ himself can be said to be guilty of?  So am I to understand that Republicans are to be denied being able to play by the same rules? 

‘Dingy’ said, "No legislation will pass with these poison pill riders. We passed a bipartisan budget agreement, we did it through good-faith negotiations. It was meant to stop a government shutdown, and we need Republicans to work with us, to stop with their demands for provisions that won't be signed into law."  Why is it always the Republicans who MUST work with the Democrats but the Democrats never see it as being appropriate to work with the Republicans?

And it was at the same news conference, that proverbial dingbat Democrat from Washington, Patty Murray, chose to throw in her two-cents.  This imbecile proceeded to make a threat of her own saying Republicans had better work with Democrats if they know what's good for them.  Really?  She said, "[If] there's one thing that's clear from the past few years, it is that the only way for Republican leaders to avoid a Tea Party crisis is to work with Democrats to get things done."

And it then that this escapee from a padded room in some mental ward said, "We saw that with our bipartisan budget deals, we are seeing that today with the Every Student Succeeds Act, and I'm hoping that we can see it again with this omnibus."  Murray said Republicans are "still playing games" by trying to jam through policy riders that have no chance of becoming law and that would be devastating for our workers, our seniors, our women and our families if they do.”

And still this idiot babbled on making very little sense.  She said, "So they need to push the Tea Party demands aside, they need to drop their poison pill riders and work with us to finish this budget process in a way that works for middle class families and the economy."  I thought a bit ironic to hear that coming from someone whose party has been the principle architect when it comes to the damage that has been done to the middle class, especially over the course of the last seven years. 

House Speaker Paul ‘RINO Ryan’ told reporters on Tuesday that, "we're not going to let the arbitrary December 11th deadline stop us from getting this right. We're going to get the best agreement we can possibly get, and those negotiations are ongoing."  Ryan held out the possibility of passing a short-term ("handful of days") continuing resolution to keep taxpayer money flowing at current levels until the omnibus spending package can be passed.

Barry “Almighty” has already promised to veto a CR. The White House says Republicans have had enough time to meet their own deadline.  Once again the Republicans prove to be their own worst enemy.  What they should do, but likely won’t, is to let Barry veto the bill and then hit the airwaves blaming any government shut down on those truly responsible.  But that’s likely too much work so they’ll simply cave on the issue and go home for the Holidays. 

Why is it that those on our side always seem to be so completely incapable of articulating the hard choices that must be made if our country is to survive long enough for the next generation to take over?  And why can’t they make it crystal clear that should the government be made to shutdown it’s only because of the Democrats stubborn refusal to do what everyone knows full well MUST be done.  But nope, we can’t do that, it’s just so much easier to simply cave.

RYAN MAINTAINS THE SAME COURSE AS BOEHNER…

With the ascension of ‘RINO Paul’ Ryan to Speaker of the House, we heard much talk regarding his desire to start his tenure with a “clean slate”.  But sadly, it would appear that very little, if anything, has actually changed since Ryan assumed the helm there in the House.  Because according to estimates just published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), we seem to be on pretty much the very same course that we were on when Boehner was in charge. 

You see, it’s according to the CBO that the federal government not has only managed to tax more, but spent more as well, and has even managed to run a bigger deficit in the first two months of fiscal 2016 than it did in the first two months of fiscal 2015.  Now for those who may be unaware of such things, the federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1 and ends on Sept. 30.  So I’m curious, what exactly did Ryan mean when he was talking about starting with a clean slate?

As of the close of business on Friday, Dec. 4, the total federal debt was at $18,786,830,545,682.60.  That according to the U.S. Treasury.  The Census Bureau says that there were 117,748,000 households in the United States as of September. Thus, the $18,786,830,545,682.60 in federal debt equals approximately $159,551.16 for each household in the United States.  So this it would appear that nothing has been done in the effort to get this train back on the tracks.

And so it is, then, that I would like to once again take the opportunity to thank all of those members of the so-called ‘Freedom Caucus’ who thought it would be anywhere near a good idea to throw their support behind ‘RINO Ryan.’  It really has worked out quite well for us.  And yes, I’m being sarcastic in my praise of these frauds who were so casually able to once again throw the country under the bus when it could have all been so easily averted.  And yet we’re right where we were.

JOHN KERRY-HEINZ, MAN ON A MISSION…

Well it would seem that our incredibly worthless secretary of state, none other than the esteemed John Kerry-Heinz, has arrived in Paris to attend the much talked about gathering which has assembled in an effort to solve a problem that does not exist.  The purpose of his attendance is to lend his haughty weight to the ongoing, and quite ambitious, U.N. climate change talks.  And in what I can only assume was an attempt on his part to take a swipe at those of us who recognize this exercise in deception for the scam that it so very clearly is, Kerry-Heinz asserted the “need to make clear that those members of the flat earth society [who dispute global warming theory] are on the wrong side of history.” 

So it was then that shortly after arriving at this gathering of climate elitists, it was at an event hosted by the tech news site, ‘Mashable’, and the U.N. Foundation, that Kerry-Heinz was heard to say, “I am so hopeful that Paris will be a truly historic moment when we will ratify what people all over the world are coming to understand, and that is that uh, this is happening.”  He went on to say, “It’s happening now,” in reference to human-caused climate change.  Adding, “It’s happening faster than scientists predicted it would, and it’s happening to greater degrees than scientists predicted it would.”  But is it not only NOT happening faster than previously thought, it’s not happening at all.  NO warming has taken place since 1997.

But still he droned on.  Kerry-Heinz said, “And we need, as responsible leaders, to take account of science – not some cockamamie ideological hypothetical, but science.”  He continued, “And we need to make clear that those members of the flat earth society are on the wrong side of history.”   Saying, finally, that, “We are going to make Paris the demarcation point where we begin to get the job done to save the planet, period.”  Now let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the planet truly was in peril. Do we actually think imbeciles like Barry Kerry-Heinz could save it?  Somehow I think that if it was left up to this cast characters to save it, then it would definitely already be too late.

Anyway, we have tens of thousands of those identified as climate change ‘delegates’ from nearly 200 countries who have descended upon the French capital for talks aimed at reaching a new, post-2020 global climate agreement, which they hope to have accomplished by this Friday.  As you may recall Barry attended the opening day on November 30, delivered a too-long by 11 minutes speech, and returned home the following day dispensing 300,000 tons of CO2 in the process.  Keenly aware of the depth of opposition to new climate initiatives in the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate, Barry wants to avoid an agreement from Paris constituting a binding treaty, which would require Senate ratification.

And it was some guy by the name of Andrew Freedman, identified as being the ‘Mashable’ science editor, who asked Kerry-Heinz why it was that U.S. negotiators were opposing language in the draft agreement that says parties “shall implement policies to meet Paris targets.”  This guy Freedman asked Kerry-Heinz, “Is their view that the State Department is just concerned about triggering a Senate ratification requirement?”   To which Kerry-Heinz responded, “Well, the frank and simple answer is that certain legal – certain terms have legal impact and certain legal impacts have political impact, and certain political impact can kill the agreement.”  Huh?  What the Hell does that mean, exactly?

We’re told that the supposed goal of this odd assortment of self-described protectors of the planet is for all of these great minds to have come together in an effort to reach some sort of an agreement that will succeed in reducing emissions of the those dreaded greenhouse gases blamed for climate change, with the objective of which is to keep average temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. World leaders agreed at earlier talks that doing so was necessary to avoid potentially cataclysmic harm to the planet.  At Paris many activists are pushing for a far more ambitious target – to keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

And when asked about this Kerry-Heinz enthusiastically responded, “Do I sympathize with it? You bet I sympathize with it. I feel very strongly that when human activity that is a choice is potentially putting whole nation-states at risk, we better care about it.” Although two degrees was the declared target in line with the “science,” Kerry-Heinz said, aiming for an even lower target would serve as an “insurance policy against that science potentially being wrong.”  But he also sounded a cautious note, saying aiming for a 1.5 degree target may be not be realistic or achievable.  He said, “I don’t think it’s realistic to embrace as the – as the sort of principal target of this agreement that kind of a goal [1.5 degrees], because I don’t think it will be taken seriously and it may not be achievable.”

I guess what really sticks in my craw regarding all of this ‘climate change’ BS is the fact that it’s the personal behavior of about 1% of the U. S. population, the ‘do as I say not as I do’ crowd, that results in a CO2 footprint that’s roughly 50 TIMES the size of your average person’s.  No surprise there. But do you realize this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL (that's right, ALL) U. S. CO2 emissions? Can anyone, like for instance Mr. Kerry-Heinz, explain to me why all the plans being unilaterally implemented by Barry will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering those in the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive?

And for those who have been paying attention here, it should be painfully obvious how it is that Kerry-Heinz makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He's insists upon throwing out all manner of platitudes and general accusations with absolutely no concrete information at all. He states things as goals, then says they are impossible. Then he says maybe some of the things are possible. Then he says that the "science is settled" even though it so very obviously is not because some nations will look at these idiotic ideas versus the potential financial impact they cause and say, no way. In some countries people like Kerry-Heinz get beheaded for using the people’s money to buy magic beans.

YES, OBAMA SPOKE TO US LAST NIGHT, BUT HE ‘SAID’ VIRTUALLY NOTHING…

In the spirit of full disclosure here, I freely admit that I simply could not bring myself to listen to Barry’s address to the nation last night.  I simply can’t stand the man.  But having said that, it was this morning that I did seek out information regarding what it was that he said.  And I must say, I wasn’t at all surprised to hear that Barry argued against America responding to ISIS by “abandoning our values or giving in to fear.”  Or that he suggested that we gut the Fifth Amendment and cast those who disagree with him as being zealots interested only in making sure that everyone is armed.

Make no mistake, Barry knew exactly what he was doing.  Barry was demagogic on what he called, misleadingly, the “no fly list,” suggesting that there is no argument for letting suspected terrorists buy guns.  In truth, the terrorist-watch list that congressional Democrats want to use to restrict gun rights is much broader than the no-fly list; there is no due process for the people on it; and the people on it are in no serious sense “suspected terrorists,” and the administration has no plans to treat them as such for purposes beyond restricting gun rights.

And you know, I would have expected such incendiary drivel from someone like ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid or from a political hack like Chuckie Schumer.  But, call me silly, shouldn’t we expect more from our president, even a president as far to the left as Barry?  I mean, isn’t the president supposed to be everybody’s leader and not just of those who agree with him?  Barry likes to say that we are attacked because we’re tolerant and free, and then he suggests that we indulge intolerance and make ourselves less free.  Such a statement had no place in his speech last night and that he included it was a disgrace.

That being said, however, there were apparently a number of parts of Barry’s address to the nation that were deemed by some as actually possessing some level of value.  However difficult it may have been for him to finally admit it, Barry did go so far as to put the San Bernardino killings in the context of the terrorists’ ongoing war against us.  He even mentioned the Ft. Hood massacre as also being part of that ongoing war. He correctly noted that the war does not pit us against Islam or most Muslims but that it does put us at odds with a radical strain within the Muslim world.

Barry also mentioned America’s allies, and spoke of what makes the United States exceptional.  Overall, though, he looked tired, frustrated and like he would rather have been anywhere other than where he was.  Gone was the usual confidence and oratorical ability, and in its place was the appearance of being bored. Teleprompter jokes aside, he really did seem to be reading it. Eventually, it happens to all presidents. Barry, I think it can now be said, is officially done.  Barry could have kept everyone from wasting the time it took to watch by simply saying, “I’m still not serious about defeating ISIS.”

But look, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any rational American who would be unable to recognize that it’s Islam that’s the real problem here.  And I would like to think that except for Democrats there’s no serious debate on that matter.  Islam must seek accommodation with modernity, anything less and it must be us who prevails in this clash of cultures. Barry spoke in trite and vacuous, meaningless sound bites meant to calm those of us considered to be rubes.  The truth is that it’s been for more than 1,000 years that the civilized West has been in conflict with the "ummah", aka the Nation of Islam. 

And it has been courtesy of our own short term commercial interests that we have essentially sold and/or transferred much that Islam and the Cultures of the Middle East, could have never created on its own.  We have attempted to civilize this backward culture and ideology and sought accommodation with that which can only be termed as being a hostile entity.  And we have allowed things to have gotten to the point where we can no longer afford to accommodate nor can we ignore this foreign and hostile culture and the ideology that it seeks to impose on the West.

To be perfectly blunt, Islam is NOT simply a religion.  It is a governing philosophy, not all that different from "National Socialism", Marxism, Maoism, Leninism or Communism.  Nobody said, that since there was only a small minority that really wanted to control all of Europe and gas all the Jews, we should seek to understand the "religion" of the Nazis, and only work to marginalize the genocidal "radicals" in the SS.  Islam is the problem, it is up to Islam to correct itself, until that happens I no longer care about how about how most are peaceful or about how we need to work with Islam.

Those who believe in the tenets of this supposed “religion of peace” called Islam, must take it upon themselves to be far more proactive in bringing about a reformation, of sorts, regarding their ‘faith’.  And until that happens we have little choice but to kill both those who threaten us and those who support them. The Middle East is a target rich environment, and I suggest that we begin to eliminate as many of those targets as quickly as we can. There are no non-believers in any of these targets. This is a war that can no longer be avoided, and it is best for everyone to accomplish victory quickly, by whatever means necessary!

THE TRUTH IS, GUN VIOLENCE IS DOWN…

Not that you’d know it from listening to Barry “Almighty”, or any of the Democrat contenders for his current position, or, for that matter, any of the many Democrat minions in the state-controlled media, but the fact is, gun violence in America is actually on the decline compared to the past 30 years.  And why might that be, you ask?  Well, it’s according to research from the Pew Research Center, the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it is thanks in part to the increased number and effectiveness of…wait for it…police officers.

According to FBI statistics on violent crime rates, America is becoming the safest it has been since 1960, when the FBI began recording data. Although the most recent data is in 2014, the overall violent crime and murder/non-negligent manslaughter rates are dropping steadily, suggesting America is only getting safer.  In 2014, the violent crime rate was 365.5, making America the safest it has been since 1970, and the murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate was 4.5 out of 100,000, making 2014 the safest year in terms of murders since 1960.

And it’s according to the data assembled that America’s least safe historical year is 1980, when the murder rate reached an all-time high of 10.2. Now as you might recall that was at the end of that very bleak time in American history known as, “The Carter Years.”  And it has been since that period of our history that the murder rate in this country has dropped steadily — albeit with a slight uptick in 1991 — but an otherwise stable trend.  But to listen to any of those on the left one would think that what has been taking place is nothing more than a worsening epidemic of gun violence.

So it would seem to at least appear that our much maligned police officers have perhaps been doing a bit more than simply running around and routinely shooting any stray young black males that they may encounter.  Imagine that!  You see, it’s according to FBI data from 2014 that shows overall homicides and usage of guns for homicide has decreased steadily over the past four years, with 8,124 homicides committed by guns in 2014 and 9,199 in 2009, again suggesting not only are homicides decreasing, but the use of guns to commit them is decreasing as well.

And it was in writing for something call The Washington Post, WonkBlog, that Max 

Ehrenfreund reported five explanations for the decrease, including an increase of federal funding to police officers, who are then able to more effectively stop violent crimes. In 1994, ‘BJ’ Clinton’s major crime bill granted federal funding to police stations across the country that allowed them to hire 100,000 officers. Ehrenfreund adds police using computers and a better economy, among others, to his list, arguing they account for, respectively, 11 percent and 10 to 11 percent of the drop.

And it’s Economist Steven Levitt who thinks that larger police forces are behind what has caused crime decreases of anywhere from 5 to 6 percent, especially in New York City, in which crime dropped 93 percent between 1990 and 2011. This precipitous drop is due in part to ramped-up policing measures by city leadership.  Either way you look at it the reason for the decrease comes down to our police officers.  Men and women who put their lives on the line every single day. It’s these people who leave for the ‘office’ every day not knowing if they’ll come home at the end of the day.

THERE’S A REASON PEOPLE DON’T TRUST THE MEDIA…

I think, at least judging by any number of recently conducted polls, it’s safe to say that a sizable majority of Americans today view what is laughingly referred to as our “mainstream news” media as little more than a massive propaganda conglomerate essentially under the sole ownership of the Democrat Party.  And as such it should come as a surprise no one that The Washington ‘Com’Post, along with any number of other state-controlled media outlets, did the best they could to make much hay after Wednesday’s shooting in San Bernardino by claiming the attack was somehow the 355th mass shooting in the U.S. since the beginning of 2015. However, the reality is, shall we say, much more nuanced.

Post reporter, and I use the term loosely, Christopher Ingraham makes no attempt to disguise the argument he’s trying to make.  Ingraham wrote, “Speaking after the Colorado Springs shooting last week, President Obama urged Americans to not let this type of violence ‘become normal.'” Ingraham went on to write, “But the data show that this type of incident already is normal. There have been more mass shootings than calendar days so far this year.”  Now of course the implication here is that San Bernardino wasn’t a stand-out event, but instead just the latest in a long string of so-called “mass” shootings. The Post’s narrative was imitated by several other outlets, such as the Los Angeles Times and NBC News.

But, as is usually the, things aren’t not always as those in the “news” would have you believe.  First of all, the Post’s definition of a “mass shooting” isn’t an official one taken from law enforcement, but is instead taken from activists operating on the website Reddit. The activists, who track shootings at the website Shooting Tracker, define a mass shooting as any shooting where 4 or more people are injured or killed.  This is a critical sleight of hand that ends up disguising the reality of most shootings.   While “mass shooting” conjures images of bloodbaths like San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, or Columbine, 147 of the shootings tracked by Shooting Tracker actually didn’t result in a single death.

The truth is that more than 40 percent of all 2015’s “mass shootings” didn’t kill anybody.  Another 104, just under 30 percent, had a single fatality, which means more than two-thirds of all “mass shootings” aren’t even multi-homicide events.  Of the 355 “mass shootings” noted by the Post, only 40 of them (about 11 percent) meet the threshold of a “mass murder” as defined by the FBI, meaning there were at least four fatalities. But even these weren’t all mass shootings in the conventional sense. As pointed out by the Washington Free Beacon, many of them were instead grisly murder-suicides, gangland massacres, or robberies, eliminating at least 15 more “mass shootings” from the list.

So once again we are provided with yet another example of how those in our state-controlled media seem to feel completely justified in their efforts to play loose with the facts if done so in an effort to move forward with the sought after narrative, which in this case is gun control.  According to the FBI there were only 160 “active shooter incidents” between 2000 and 2013, when gang-related shootings were excepted, but those where nobody was shot or killed were included.  The Washington Post uncritically mentioned the high number of shootings while adding no additional context or explanation, and ignoring the nuance of the Shooting Tracker’s numbers.  The Post is but one example of what our ‘news’ media has become.

CALIFORNIA: AN ACT OF TERRORISM OR OF WORKPLACE VIOLENCE…WHICH WAS IT???

Now there are those occasions, however rare, when I don’t quite agree with Rudy Giuliani on certain issues.  But as the former mayor of New York City during 9/11 and a U.S. associate attorney general under President Reagan, I find it difficult, if not impossible to disagree with him when it comes to defining what it was that took place in San Bernadino, Calif., this past Wednesday.  I agree wholeheartedly with America’s Mayor when he describes it as being unquestionably an “act of terror”.  And he then, and rather bluntly, opined that if, at this point, one could not conclude that it was an act of terror, then “you’re a moron.”

Of course what Mayor Giuliani was referencing here is the shooting that took place at the Inland Regional Center on Dec. 2 where 14 people were killed and another 21 were wounded. The ‘suspects’ in this shooting, who were eventually shot by police, were Tashfeen Malik, from Pakistan, and Syed Rizwan Farook, apparently a U.S. citizen who it has been reported was a “devout Muslim.”  And while our president has gone to great pains to portray this tragedy as being anything but an act of terrorism, the more we find out about these who perpetrated this heinous act, the more that becomes the only possible conclusion.

Yesterday during an appearance on Fox’s America’s Newsroom Giuliani told the show’s host, Bill Hemmer, “The question here is not, is it an act of terror? We’re beyond that. When you’ve got two assault weapons, two handguns, you’re in body armor, you got a home that’s boobytrapped. You’ve been practicing to do this.  Sure, it may have been motivated by some argument in a party, but this is a premeditated act of terror.”  Makes sense to me.  I mean is a guy who’s simply pissed off at his coworkers going to spend time necessary to amass the amount of weaponry that they had and to build pipe bombs?  Call me crazy, but I just don’t think so.

Hemmer said, “It may or may not have been. If you put the pieces together, his wife drove the vehicle to the facility in all likelihood because that’s why he left the meeting and went outside. And perhaps that’s when he changed and got armored-up. Does that make sense to you?”  To which Giuliani responded by saying, “It makes sense to me that it’s an act of terror.”  He went on to say, “If you can’t come to the conclusion at this point that this is an act of terror, you should find something else to do for a living than being in law enforcement. I mean, you’re a moron.”  He went on to say, “This is an act of terror without any question.”

Rudy said, “Two assault weapons, two handguns, booby-trapped home, body armor, a home that looks like they were preparing for war or some kind of battle. So, it’s an act of terror.”  He continued, “The real question is what’s the motivation? Is this part of, is ISIL, the Islamic State’s plot? Is it part of some other plot? Is it homegrown jihadism or is it just insanity? Those are the issues that are out there.”  He then went on, “There are a lot of suggestions that it has a connection to the Arab, Islamic faith,” said Giuliani.  Rudy pointed out that Farook had gone to Saudi Arabia and gotten an online bride and these are tactics encouraged by ISIS.

And yet it was courtesy of a very carefully crafted statement issued later that very same day from the Oval Office that Barry “Almighty’, and rather stubbornly so, held onto the cockamamie notion that it could still very likely be nothing more than yet another incidence of workplace violence. Barry told the nation that it “is possible” that the mass murder in San Bernardino on Wednesday was “terrorist-related” but that it also could have been “workplace-related."  And it was later in his statement that he suggested it might have been a mix of both.  He just could bring himself to admit that it might be terrorism.

Barry would say of these cold-blooded killers, “We don’t know at this point the extent of their plans.”  And he added that, “We do not know their motivations.”  And he then went on to say, “It is possible that this was terrorist-related, but we don’t know.” And he added, “It’s also possible that this was workplace-related.”  And said, “Our expectation is, is that this may take some time before we’re able to sort it all through.”  And he said, “There may be mixed motives involved in this, which makes the investigation more complicated.”  Look, if this case is complicated it’s only because Barry is trying to ‘make’ it at least appear that way.

Look, this case is pretty cut and dry, but that didn’t keep Barry from saying that one of the things that needs to be looked at is "the nature of the workplace relationship between the individual and his superiors."  Here are some key excerpts from the Barry’s statement, which can be read in full at the White House website:

“We do know that the two individuals who were killed were equipped with weapons and appeared to have access to additional weaponry at their homes.  But we don’t know why they did it.  We don’t know at this point the extent of their plans.  We do not know their motivations. 

"And I just received a briefing from FBI Director Comey, as well as Attorney General Lynch, indicating the course of their investigation.  At this point, this is now a FBI investigation. That’s been done in cooperation and consultation with local law enforcement.  It is possible that this was terrorist-related, but we don’t know.  It’s also possible that this was workplace-related.  And until the FBI has been able to conduct what are going to be a large number of interviews, until we understand the nature of the workplace relationship between the individual and his superiors -- because he worked with the organization where this terrible shooting took place -- until all the social media and electronic information has been exploited, we’re just not going to be able to answer those questions…..

"Our expectation is, is that this may take some time before we’re able to sort it all through.  There may be mixed motives involved in this, which makes the investigation more complicated.  But rest assured that we will get to the bottom of this.”

So as the days have passed since this most recent tragedy, it’s becoming all the more obvious that there are far more people who agree with Rudy’s assessment of the events that occurred than agree with the rather naïve assessment stubbornly maintained by our Muslim sympathizer of a president, Barry “Almighty.”  And as to be expected, Barry’s very first response was to call for new and more restrictive gun laws.  And this was at the very same time that his spokesmoron readily admitted that stricter gun laws would not have prevented this atrocity.  And besides, California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the entire country.

Barry’s motto is, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  Barry, as well as the number one contender for his job, saw this tragedy as being nothing more than as an opportunity. An opportunity to once again go after law abiding gun owners as if they are somehow to blame.  I’ll tell you who’s to blame, and it’s not the NRA or any of us who believe in our Second Amendment right to own a gun.  We already have thousands of gun laws on the books, most of which are simply allowed to go unenforced.  But Barry has a very sinister reason for not enforcing these laws.  Barry hopes to increase such incidents as this in the hope of convincing enough Americans that NEW, more restrictive, laws are needed.  

THERE IS STUPID AND THEN THERE’S HANK…

Look, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, those who comprise the Georgia congressional district of Hank Johnson, Democrat, must be just oh so proud of this dumbass who they first elected in 2006 and have been sending back to the House every two years ever since.  It’s either that, or they too are some of the dumbest people that are likely to be found anywhere in the entire state.  You have to ask yourself, what is it that people see in this boob that makes them want to vote for him?   

I mean here you have a guy who recently thought it necessary to take to the House floor and sound the alarm, warning us all about a “planet uninhabitable by human beings” and the “demise of humankind itself”.  And what was it that brought Hank to make such a dire declaration?  Because the House was debating joint resolutions to prevent Barry’s out of control Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing oppressive rules to cut emissions from electricity generating facilities.

And it was in speaking out in opposition to these measures that Hank said, “Now I do realize that some of us really don’t care whether or not mankind’s actions contribute to climate change.”  He went on to say, “Some of us really don’t care, some of us don’t care to consider that 95% of scientists recognize that it’s man’s activities that are contributing to the astronomical rate of climate change that is occurring that has the potential to render our planet uninhabitable by human beings.”

Hank then went on to say, “You can laugh, you can smile, you can joke, but 95% of the scientists agree that if we continue along the same path that we are continuing along that it’s the demise of humankind itself - that’s the end result.”  Hank might want to get together with Barry so that they can get their stories straight.  Because while Hank is saying that 95% of scientists agree than humans are behind climate change, Barry is out there saying that it’s 99.5% of scientists. 

So which is it?  Actually there’s not a lick of truth in either number, and that’s been proven time and time again.  Whether it’s Barry, Hank, or any other Democrat, when it comes to this latest scam the Democrats are working hard to pull out all the stops in their attempt to convince a very skeptical American people that it’s worth it to them to watch their utility bills going through the roof if it means making sure the planet will be saved for their children.  But the fact is, the planet is in NO danger.  

OBAMA CLAIMS 99.5 PERCENT OF SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH…HIM…

In what can only be described as an act of pure desperation in what was yet another attempt to prove this cockamamie leftist theory of man-caused ‘climate changed is a reality, Barry “Almighty’, only one of many of the high-priests of the ‘climate change’ religion, said, just a couple of days ago, that he's quite confident that his successor will honor any ‘climate change’ agreement negotiated in Paris because, if for no other reason, "99.5 percent of scientists and 99 percent of world leaders" think that climate change "is really important."  I guess by implying that only .5 percent of scientists disagree the theory of ‘climate change’, it must be true.

Barry’s idiotic claim that there is somehow now a 99.5 percent consensus among scientists on climate change represents a 2.5 percent increase since May 16, 2013, when it was Barry then who tweeted that, “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”  And it was during a press conference in Paris that Barry said, “Everybody else is taking climate change really seriously. They think it's a really big problem. It spans political parties.”  Now I’m not sure which ‘everybody’ it is that Barry might be talking about, unless, of course, it’s ‘everybody on the left.’  If that’s the case, then he might be right.

So it was then in responding to a question that he was asked about whether or not foreign leaders can believe the U.S. will keep any commitments that it makes in Paris especially if it is a Republican who succeeds him in the White House that Barry responded by saying, “Whoever is the next president of the United States, if they come in and they suggest somehow that that global consensus — not just 99.5% of scientists and experts, but 99% of world leaders — think this is really important, I think the president of the United States is going to need to think this is really important.”  Any Republican who this malarkey is important should not be elected!

But anyway, in getting back to this idiotic drivel about there now being ’97 percent of scientists” who agree with this climate lunacy, the origin of this much ballyhooed statistic apparently dates back to a 2009 study by some University of Illinois/Chicago graduate student by the name of Kendall Zimmerman.  Apparently Zimmerman sent out a survey to 10,257 earth scientists asking them two questions: 1) “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” and 2) “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Now it was 82 percent of the 3,146 scientists who bothered to complete Zimmerman’s silly little survey (which boils down to a 30.7% response rate) that answered “yes” to question 2. That figure included 75 of the 79 individuals (97.4%) who self-identified themselves as climate scientists.  And then it was in a 2013 paper published by the Institute of Physic’s IOPScience and cited by NASA that University of Queensland climate communication fellow John Cook also stated that 97 percent of scientists who took a position on global warming agreed that humans were the primary cause.  So despite the fact that it was a complete fabrication it was again cited as fact. 

However, a peer review of Cook’s paper by David Legates, a former state climatologist and professor at the University of Delaware, which was published in the April 2015 issue of Science and Education thoroughly debunked the 97 percent consensus figure.  Legates pointed out that only 41 of the 11,944 academic papers Cook examined in his meta-analysis (0.3%) explicitly stated that most of the global warming since 1950 was caused by human activity.  Legates wrote, “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when in the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.”

Cook’s paper was also criticized by other scientists for what they referred to as a number of methodological errors.  It was the three authors of ‘Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming’ that wrote in a just-released book published by the Heartland Institute that, “Probably the most widely repeated claim in the debate over global warming is that ‘97% of scientists agree’ that climate change is man-made and dangerous.”  They added, “This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science.”  But that certainly hasn’t prevented Barry, or others, from repeating it ad nauseam in an effort to add credibility to their claims.

So Barry, and the rest of the ‘climate change’ zealots can continue to make their idiotic claim about how there is an overwhelming number of ‘scientists’ who support their theory and that it’s you and I who are behind that which is causing the planet to get warmer, but it’s all nothing more than pure unadulterated leftist bullshit.  And the thing is, they KNOW it’s all bullshit.  How could they not?   But their hope is that if they continue to talk about it, and to claim that every major calamity that comes about is somehow related to climate change, they will finally succeed in convincing enough of us to go along with them. And that we cannot allow to have happen!

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO OBAMA…

Rarely in one’s lifetime does one encounter a man who possesses the incredible ego or the level of arrogance as that possessed by our current president, Barry “Almighty.”  And for a man who takes great pride in viewing himself as being the smartest guy in any room or, in his case, the smartest guy on the planet, Barry consistently demonstrates himself to be possessing, instead, a dangerous naiveté.  And while taking himself so seriously, the majority of his fellow world leaders likely view him as being little more than the class clown.  A view that does not bode well for the American people.  Because when Barry is ridiculed, we are as well. 

Barry recently expressed his rather apocalyptic vision of what he sees as being the future of the planet and he went so far as to actually suggest that reasonable people have little choice to not only accept, but to embrace, his cockamamie view of the future.  And with very little, if any, actual proof to back up his wild predictions, Barry claims to foresee:  "Submerged countries. Abandoned cities. Fields that no longer grow."  And also: "Political disruptions that trigger new conflict, and even more floods of desperate peoples seeking the sanctuary of nations not their own."  Climate change, he argues, threatens to cause all of these problems.

And so it was then at the international climate change conference currently underway in Paris that Barry once again repeated his urgent call for an international agreement that would seek to curb global carbon emissions brought about by what he views as being the very reckless disregard that we humans seem to have for ‘Mother Earth’.  Barry said, "So I just want to repeat so that everybody understands what we will consider success several weeks from now."  And he then went on to say, "Number one, that it is an ambitious target that seeks a low-carbon global economy over the course of this century."  So apparently only Barry is qualified to declare success?

And frankly, what I find as being pretty amazing, in itself, is the fact that even Barry has admitted that that which even he views as being "an ambitious target" will likely not prevent any of those catastrophes which he himself has forecasted to occur.  But, according to Barry, what it will do is build "the architecture" for further controls.  Barry said, "And if we hit those targets, then we will have been successful." And then he went on to say, "Not because, by the way, the pledges alone will meet the necessary targets for us to prevent catastrophic climate change, but because we will have built the architecture that's needed.”

Because, according to Barry, "We will have established a global consensus of how we're going to approach this problem."  And he went on to say, "And then we can successfully turn up the dials as new sources of energy become available, as the unit costs for something like solar or improvements in battery technology make it easier for us to meet even higher targets. And, systematically, we can drive down carbon emissions and the pace of climate change over the course of several decades."  But just how much does he really think we alter the pace of ‘climate change’ and at what cost?  This is total nonsense!

And it was something called ‘The National Climate Assessment’ that Barry released last year argued that greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change, that carbon dioxide makes up the vast majority of the greenhouse gas produced in the United States, and that transportation and electricity production are America's worst offenders in producing this gas.  And it was according to this ‘assessment’ that, "Human-caused climate change results mainly from the increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases."  It said, "Carbon dioxide made up 84 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011."

According to Barry’s silly ‘assessment’, "Forty-one percent of these emissions were attributable to liquid fuels (petroleum), followed closely by solid fuels (principally coal in electric generation), and to a lesser extent by natural gas. The two dominant production sectors responsible for these emissions are, shockingly, electric power generation (coal and gas) and transportation (petroleum)."  So it would seem that according to Barry the problem lies with all us freedom loving Americans who like to drive around in our privately owned cars and trucks and enjoy living and working in warm, well-lit places.

Now I can only assume that which could very easily be referred to as being Barry’s truly nightmare scenario would be for the entire world to someday achieve that same freedom of movement, the winter-time warmth and the summer-time air-conditioning that Americans — with their free economy and industrious spirit — have enjoyed for many decades now.  Because what would that come to mean for global carbon emissions?  Now enter into the picture some guy by the name John P. Holdren, who is, I guess, someone that we can refer to as being Barry’s Science and Technology Czar and was one of the guys behind this ‘assessment’ of his.

Now it was back in 1973 that this guy Holdren joined with Paul and Anne Ehrlich (authors of "The Population Bomb") to co-author "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions." In that book, it was Barry's future science Czar who actually argued for "de-development" of the United States and global redistribution of wealth.  It was these three losers who wrote:  "What is actually needed is nothing less than a transformation of human society."  Adding, "For, if these programs can have any chance of success, mankind will finally have to start treating the entire globe as a single entity and all human problems as part of the same complex fabric."

And it was Holdren and the Ehrlichs who at the time said, "Some degree of sovereignty will have to be sacrificed if rational control over the planet's resources and the maintenance of the quality of the oceans and atmosphere are to be achieved."  And in 1995 Holdren joined again with Paul Ehrlich (and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford) to argue for a world of zero growth.  And it was in a little nonsensical essay published by the World Bank that these three clones got together writing, "Many of the practices inadequately supporting today's population of 5.5 billion people are unsustainable."

In Paris, Barry did not argue for de-developing the United States or a world of zero net physical growth. But he did argue for organizing the world around climate change.  Barry said, "Part of what I've been trying to describe during the course of my presidency is that where we make the most impact — and where, by the way, we strengthen our relationships and influence the most — is when we are helping to organize the world around a particular problem." This, Barry believes, is what his administration did "during the Ebola response" and in "making sure that Iran didn't get a nuclear weapon."  Now, he says: "The same is true with climate change."

Now Barry may very well be ‘The One’ for whom we had all been waiting back in 2008, but the fact is, for a man who came into office holding so much promise, he has proven himself to be little more than ‘one’ great disappointment on any number of levels.  And while millions of those who chose to vote for him will likely never admit such a thing, that doesn’t alter the reality that he has been, as president, nothing short of a colossal failure.  Granted, he has succeeded in forever altering this country, but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone, if they are being honest with themselves, who could say that he has changed it, in any meaningful way, for the better.

OBAMA MAKES A LAUGHINGSTOCK OUT OF ALL OF US ALL…

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?