During a congressional trip to the United Nations 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) on “climate change,” Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.; shown) ignored reality and claimed the United States was still committed to the “climate” fight and the UN “Paris Agreement.” “We came here to say we’re still in,” Pelosi said at the UN summit in Madrid. However, in the real world, President Donald Trump, who ridiculed the man-made warming alarmism as a “hoax” to benefit Communist China, is still the president. And under his administration, the U.S. government is still in the process of leaving the controversial and illegitimate UN deal.
Beyond ignoring the fact that a skeptic of the hypothesis is still sitting in the White House, Pelosi also misled UN COP 25 attendees about Congress, too. “Our delegation is here to send a message that Congress’s commitment to take action on the climate crisis is iron-clad,” Pelosi claimed. In reality, just a tiny handful of fringe Republicans — dubbed Republicans in Name Only by political analysts — publicly support “action” on “climate.” In fact, it was major news a few weeks ago when one freshman Republican senator joined with a Democrat to create a “Climate Solutions Caucus.” Despite the effort to mislead the world, though, delegates at the UN summit are well aware of the lack of American support.
During a 30-minute press conference in Madrid, Democrats chose not to focus on Trump or the fact that Americans elected a president who boldly rejected and ridiculed the hypothesis underpinning their agenda. Instead, the coalition of radical U.S. lawmakers spent much of their time emphasizing the fact that some of America's most leftist city and state governments were handicapping their own economies and raising the cost of living for the people they represent under the guise of fighting “climate change.” Overall, they sounded detached from reality, observers said. At the end of the press conference, some of the Democrats even shouted: “We’re still in!”
Critics ridiculed the House Speaker and her fellow Democrats in the delegation for sounding so out of touch with the real world. “Pelosi and the rest need a lesson in the U.S. Constitution and how foreign policy is lawfully made in this country,” said Craig Rucker, president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a free-market environmentalist group. After that, the CFACT chief volunteered to teach the Democrats a basic civics lesson.
Read the entire article
BATR 2020 Election News
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Friday, December 06, 2019
Friday, March 22, 2019
Radical Obama Appointed Judge Rudolph Conteras Blocks Oil Drilling in Wyoming Due to Global Warming Junk Science
Again, radical Obama Judge Contreras is in WASHINGTON DC! It is not clear if he HAS EVER been to Wyoming.
Democrats are against US energy production unless they can buy it from China, like windmills and solar panels. The suicide party.
Judge Contreras was appointed by Barack Obama in in 2012 as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.
He was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) court in 2016.
Current Chief Justice John Roberts has been in his role since 2005 and therefore he has appointed all the judges to the FISA court. Judge Roberts is famous for supporting Obamacare in two radical positions, one of which Justice Antonin Scalia, in his withering dissent, refered to as “applesauce”. Knowing this, it is concerning that Judge Roberts also is responsible for the makeup of the current FISA court.
Contreras suddenly recused himself from former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s criminal case in December 2017.
Read the entire article
Democrats are against US energy production unless they can buy it from China, like windmills and solar panels. The suicide party.
Judge Contreras was appointed by Barack Obama in in 2012 as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.
He was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) court in 2016.
Current Chief Justice John Roberts has been in his role since 2005 and therefore he has appointed all the judges to the FISA court. Judge Roberts is famous for supporting Obamacare in two radical positions, one of which Justice Antonin Scalia, in his withering dissent, refered to as “applesauce”. Knowing this, it is concerning that Judge Roberts also is responsible for the makeup of the current FISA court.
Contreras suddenly recused himself from former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s criminal case in December 2017.
Read the entire article
Monday, February 11, 2019
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Technocracy: A Clear And Present Danger Of Epic Magnitude
Since the release of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, I have been doing quite a few radio interviews and more are scheduled for the near future. In the process, something has dawned on me that needs to be addressed.
Many people breeze across Technocracy.News and completely misinterpret what it is here for. It is NOT to bash technology, engineers or scientists. It is NOT to scare you with “truth is stranger than fiction” memes.
The chief and only purpose of Technocracy.News is to demonstrate the tentacles of Technocracy around the world in THEIR words, not mine.
There are now over 2,800 categorized and indexed articles posted, which has become a research treasure trove for many. I have included my own comments at the top of each article, in order to provide context.
Let me be very clear about this: I am totally opposed to Technocracy. I support the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and promote them as the best form of citizen-involved government in the history of the world. As a Christian, I believe in the sanctity and dignity of man having been created in the image of God; to put this another way, I do not believe that you are an animal equivalent to a steer in a feed lot.
Read the entire article
Many people breeze across Technocracy.News and completely misinterpret what it is here for. It is NOT to bash technology, engineers or scientists. It is NOT to scare you with “truth is stranger than fiction” memes.
The chief and only purpose of Technocracy.News is to demonstrate the tentacles of Technocracy around the world in THEIR words, not mine.
There are now over 2,800 categorized and indexed articles posted, which has become a research treasure trove for many. I have included my own comments at the top of each article, in order to provide context.
Let me be very clear about this: I am totally opposed to Technocracy. I support the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and promote them as the best form of citizen-involved government in the history of the world. As a Christian, I believe in the sanctity and dignity of man having been created in the image of God; to put this another way, I do not believe that you are an animal equivalent to a steer in a feed lot.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, January 09, 2018
Thursday, November 09, 2017
Climate Engineering Is A Gateway To Global Government
As the U.S. House of Representatives held its first hearing on climate engineering it is becoming clear that the technology will lead to international governance.
On Wednesday the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing held the first House hearing on the controversial subject of climate engineering or weather modification. The hearing, titled “Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology,” brought together members of the House committees as well as representatives of think tanks, scientists, and researchers in the field to discuss the future of geoengineering research and whether the Trump administration should allocate funding.
The push for discussion of geoengineering from the Trump administration should come as no surprise. Back in January 2017, Activist Post reported that “the U.S. Global Change Research Program quietly recommended new studies looking into two specific areas of research involving geoengineering.” With the release of their report, the GCRP became the first scientists in the federal government to formally recommend studies involving geoengineering.
Participants in Wednesday’s hearing include Full Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas). Witness testimony came from Dr. Phil Rasch, chief scientist for climate science, Laboratory Fellow, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Dr. Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center; Dr. Douglas MacMartin, senior research associate, Cornell University; and Ms. Kelly Wanser, principal director, Marine Cloud Brightening Project, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington.
Before the discussion began, the committee members established a working definition of geoengineering. According to a 2013 congressional report:
Read the entire article
On Wednesday the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing held the first House hearing on the controversial subject of climate engineering or weather modification. The hearing, titled “Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology,” brought together members of the House committees as well as representatives of think tanks, scientists, and researchers in the field to discuss the future of geoengineering research and whether the Trump administration should allocate funding.
The push for discussion of geoengineering from the Trump administration should come as no surprise. Back in January 2017, Activist Post reported that “the U.S. Global Change Research Program quietly recommended new studies looking into two specific areas of research involving geoengineering.” With the release of their report, the GCRP became the first scientists in the federal government to formally recommend studies involving geoengineering.
Participants in Wednesday’s hearing include Full Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas). Witness testimony came from Dr. Phil Rasch, chief scientist for climate science, Laboratory Fellow, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Dr. Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center; Dr. Douglas MacMartin, senior research associate, Cornell University; and Ms. Kelly Wanser, principal director, Marine Cloud Brightening Project, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington.
Before the discussion began, the committee members established a working definition of geoengineering. According to a 2013 congressional report:
Read the entire article
Friday, September 08, 2017
The Four-Wheeled Patriot Act
Whenever Congress does something unanimously (or nearly so) you can rest assured it’s in their interests, not ours.
The USA Patriot Act comes to mind.
Another is the Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research in Vehicle Evolution Act – aka the SELF DRIVE Act – which was rubber stamped through Congress the other day. This is the law that exempts automated cars from the safety requirements that apply to autonomous cars – that is, the cars which are independent of government control and controlled by us.
Just as the Patriot Act was written, not to “fight terrorism,” but to make it easier for government to terrorize us, by circumventing or simply ignoring the Bill of Rights.
Same operating principle behind both.
There is irony – and malevolence – here.
Read the entire article
The USA Patriot Act comes to mind.
Another is the Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research in Vehicle Evolution Act – aka the SELF DRIVE Act – which was rubber stamped through Congress the other day. This is the law that exempts automated cars from the safety requirements that apply to autonomous cars – that is, the cars which are independent of government control and controlled by us.
Just as the Patriot Act was written, not to “fight terrorism,” but to make it easier for government to terrorize us, by circumventing or simply ignoring the Bill of Rights.
Same operating principle behind both.
There is irony – and malevolence – here.
Read the entire article
Friday, June 02, 2017
With Nod to Sovereignty, Trump Dumps UN “Climate” Regime
After months of keeping the world in suspense about his intentions, President Donald Trump formally announced that the United States would be withdrawing from the United Nations “Paris Agreement” on alleged man-made global warming. Blasting the non-binding UN scheme as a counterproductive effort to disadvantage America and redistribute U.S. wealth rather than fix the “climate,” Trump portrayed the decision as one that puts “America First.” He also chastised foreign powers and their lobbyists for demanding that the United States continue to handicap its economy under the guise of doing virtually nothing for the climate. The withdrawal, Trump said, represents the “re-assertion of America's sovereignty” and a fulfillment of his efforts to re-invigorate the American economy. It was also the fulfillment of Trump's oft-repeated pledge to “cancel” the UN scheme.
However, frustrating some of his supporters and climate realists, Trump also indicated that he was open to either re-negotiating the Paris Agreement or creating a similar international “climate” regime that would be more “fair” to the United States. In fact, the president even offered to work with Democrat Party leaders to create a new global-warming scheme — provided it was more fair and did not impose undue burdens on the United States that did not apply equally to other nations, including the world's top polluters. Some Trump supporters, though, suggested that the president understands such a “far better” so-called “climate” regime will never materialize. Plus, even if it did, it would stand virtually no chance of being ratified by the Senate, as required by the Constitution — especially since most Americans reject the warming theory to begin with. If no new deal emerges, “that's fine,” Trump said.
Trump's speech, though, was widely celebrated as wonderful by his supporters and especially his core base. Despite softening his rhetoric on the man-made global-warming theory, which he repeatedly referred to as a “hoax” over a period of years, Trump's historic announcement pleased a broad array of his supporters on main street. From supporting workers and domestic energy production to defending the U.S. Constitution and American sovereignty, Trump's speech hit multiple points that American patriots have been longing to hear from a U.S. president for decades. Indeed, the decision itself was a stunning blow to globalist-swamp schemers, “climate” AstroTurf activists, mega-bankers, UN bureaucrats, Third World dictators, Big Oil, crony capitalists, the pope and the full spectrum of forces lobbying Trump to stay in the imploding UN scheme.
The UN “Paris Agreement,” as the pseudo-treaty is called, was negotiated in Paris, France, in December of 2015 by Obama, the UN, and the UN's largely autocratic and corrupt member regimes. Under the scheme, Obama purported to commit the United States to draconian economic and energy restrictions, all while pledging to redistribute hundreds of billions of taxpayer money from the middle class in West to Third World regimes and the UN. Because Obama knew it would stand no chance of being ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the U.S. Constitution, the administration called it an “executive agreement” and claimed ratification was not needed. But as this magazine warned at the time, such a plot meant the foundation of the pseudo-treaty was built on quicksand, all but ensuring its eventual collapse. Indeed, without U.S. participation and tax money, the scheme is essentially dead.
Read the entire article
However, frustrating some of his supporters and climate realists, Trump also indicated that he was open to either re-negotiating the Paris Agreement or creating a similar international “climate” regime that would be more “fair” to the United States. In fact, the president even offered to work with Democrat Party leaders to create a new global-warming scheme — provided it was more fair and did not impose undue burdens on the United States that did not apply equally to other nations, including the world's top polluters. Some Trump supporters, though, suggested that the president understands such a “far better” so-called “climate” regime will never materialize. Plus, even if it did, it would stand virtually no chance of being ratified by the Senate, as required by the Constitution — especially since most Americans reject the warming theory to begin with. If no new deal emerges, “that's fine,” Trump said.
Trump's speech, though, was widely celebrated as wonderful by his supporters and especially his core base. Despite softening his rhetoric on the man-made global-warming theory, which he repeatedly referred to as a “hoax” over a period of years, Trump's historic announcement pleased a broad array of his supporters on main street. From supporting workers and domestic energy production to defending the U.S. Constitution and American sovereignty, Trump's speech hit multiple points that American patriots have been longing to hear from a U.S. president for decades. Indeed, the decision itself was a stunning blow to globalist-swamp schemers, “climate” AstroTurf activists, mega-bankers, UN bureaucrats, Third World dictators, Big Oil, crony capitalists, the pope and the full spectrum of forces lobbying Trump to stay in the imploding UN scheme.
The UN “Paris Agreement,” as the pseudo-treaty is called, was negotiated in Paris, France, in December of 2015 by Obama, the UN, and the UN's largely autocratic and corrupt member regimes. Under the scheme, Obama purported to commit the United States to draconian economic and energy restrictions, all while pledging to redistribute hundreds of billions of taxpayer money from the middle class in West to Third World regimes and the UN. Because Obama knew it would stand no chance of being ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the U.S. Constitution, the administration called it an “executive agreement” and claimed ratification was not needed. But as this magazine warned at the time, such a plot meant the foundation of the pseudo-treaty was built on quicksand, all but ensuring its eventual collapse. Indeed, without U.S. participation and tax money, the scheme is essentially dead.
Read the entire article
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Monday, May 30, 2016
Monday, May 23, 2016
Bayer and Monsanto: A Marriage Made in Hell
In a world infected with a plethora of immoral multinational corporations, it is hard to think of two corporations which have more nefarious histories than Bayer AG and Monsanto. Considering this, it is a harrowing prospect that the two corporations could potentially strike a deal in the near future.
As Bloomberg reported earlier this month, Bayer AG – the German pharmaceutical and chemical corporation – is reportedly considering a bid for the agrochemical and biotechnology corporation, Monsanto. This comes two months after Monsanto showed some interest in acquiring Bayer Crop Sciences, a branch of Bayer AG.
Founded in 1863, Bayer may be familiar to many readers as the first company to widely sell and trademark Aspirin in the late nineteenth century. But there is a far more sinister history to this company that is often omitted.
The Inception of Chemical Warfare
April 22nd, 1915 is widely considered to be the first successful large-scale use of poison gas in warfare, when the Germany army deployed chlorine gas against the French lines at the start of the Second Battle of Ypres. In January of that year, German forces had released gas against Russian forces, yet the cold conditions inhibited the main agents in the weapon from having the desired impact.
Read the enter article
As Bloomberg reported earlier this month, Bayer AG – the German pharmaceutical and chemical corporation – is reportedly considering a bid for the agrochemical and biotechnology corporation, Monsanto. This comes two months after Monsanto showed some interest in acquiring Bayer Crop Sciences, a branch of Bayer AG.
Founded in 1863, Bayer may be familiar to many readers as the first company to widely sell and trademark Aspirin in the late nineteenth century. But there is a far more sinister history to this company that is often omitted.
The Inception of Chemical Warfare
April 22nd, 1915 is widely considered to be the first successful large-scale use of poison gas in warfare, when the Germany army deployed chlorine gas against the French lines at the start of the Second Battle of Ypres. In January of that year, German forces had released gas against Russian forces, yet the cold conditions inhibited the main agents in the weapon from having the desired impact.
Read the enter article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)