Barack Obama is a Moral Coward and an Asskisser to Totalitarns !

Last December, President Obama  decided to greet Pope Francis with transgendered activists, the first gay Episcopal Bishop who is now already divorced, and activist Catholic nuns. The Vatican was not happy about it and has pushed back.

On the eve of Pope Francis’s arrival in the U.S., the Vatican has taken offense at the Obama administration’s decision to invite to the pope’s welcome ceremony transgender activists, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an activist nun who leads a group
criticized by the Vatican for its silence on abortion and euthanasia.

The Obama Administration was no doubt thrilled to make a show of it and push a secularist, anti-Catholic agenda while embarrassing Pope Francis and putting the Pope in an awkward political position.

According to a senior Vatican official, the Holy See worried that any photos of the pope with these guests at the White House welcoming ceremony could be interpreted as an endorsement of their activities.

But Barack Obama would never do this if the Pope was a major trading partner, had a military, or was a totalitarian despot who snuffed out human rights activists.

This was, after all, the President of the United States who sent the Dalai Lama out the back door with the trash so as not to offend the Chinese.

This is the President who turned his back on the Iranian Green Revolution so he could do business with Iran’s totalitarian dictators.

The Chinese Premier is coming for a state visit. What are the odds that the President will greet him with Tibetan dissidents and Taiwanese freedom protestors. What are the odds there will be any there who fled after Tiananmen? I put the odds and slightly less than zero.

Then, of course, there are the Cubans. The President did nothing to work to improve the situation of Cuban human rights activists in jail. He turned a blind eye to them while trying to improve relations with that totalitarian regime. He even had fun watching a baseball game with Raoul and doing the ''Wave''.

But the Pope? Oh, we can greet the Pope with transgendered activists, gay rights activists, and Catholics who disagree with the Pope on Catholic doctrine. That’s really standing up to power and speaking truth!!

The Way I See It.......President Obama, in fact, is only willing to stand up and speak truth when it costs him nothing. He’s never met a totalitarian he wasn’t willing to kneel in front of.

UK “Equalities” Chief Admits He Was Wrong, Muslims Won’t Assimilate !

By Pamela Geller, Breitbart London, April 10, 2016: In one of the most extraordinary admissions of defeat in modern times, Trevor Phillips, the former chief of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), has admitted that the path that Britain has been on for years is a catastrophic failure. Muslims won’t assimilate and become loyal Britons. Phillips wrote: “For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.” Instead, he wrote, Muslims are creating “nations within nations” in the West.   It is astonishing that any member of the ruling elite would admit defeat and state what is painfully obvious to any rational human being who for the last few years has been watching the disintegration of the Western mores and law in the wake of Muslim immigration.   Muslims are the only immigrant group that comes to Western countries with a ready-made model of society and government (sharia) which they believe to be superior to what we have here, and they work to institute it.   The question is, now that Phillips has spoken up and stated the truth, what will the UK do now? Continue to jail those who speak critically of jihad and sharia? Or will the UK begin shutting down mosques that incite Muslims to wage jihad?   Will it prohibit hate preachers from speaking on UK college campuses, and instead invite my colleagues? Will Muslim immigration from jihad nations be halted? Will sharia courts be shut down?   This admission of defeat is all the more remarkable coming from Phillips, who popularized the term “Islamophobia” in Britain. As I explained in my book Stop the Islamization of America, the very word is a fictional construct. It was popularized deliberately by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT).   Abdur Rahman Muhammad, a member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the development of the word. “This loathsome term,” he wrote, “is nothing more then I thought terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of Muslim thing tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”   The term “Islamophobia” was designed specifically for the Western mindset of liberal white guilt, stealing the “civil rights” narrative from black Americans and mining the “oppression” of Native Americans, even throwing in the spectre of the Japanese internment camps during World War II.   These are the clubs Islamic supremacists in the West use to beat anyone who dares to speak out or push back against the encroaching sharia, the appeasement of Islamic supremacists and their demands in the secular marketplace, and the restriction of free speech. It was why I was banned from the UK, which is acting like a de facto Islamic state.   In reality, “Islamophobia” is nothing more than a term that Islamic supremacists use to enforce the Islamic blasphemy laws in the West: in Islamic law, to defame or insult Muhammad or Islam is blasphemy, and in many Muslim countries it’s punishable by death. That is why devout Muslims tried to slaughter all of us in Garland, Texas last May, at our Muhammad art exhibit in the defence of the freedom of speech.   The handful of us who have, for years, predicted and warned of the disastrous consequences of large-scale Muslim immigration have been smeared, defamed, and blacklisted — our reputations destroyed. And now once again we have been shown to have been right all along. Phillips made his statement after a poll showed, according to Breitbart London: One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house; 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband; 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife; 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal; 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament. These numbers are consistent with numerous polls that have been conducted over the past decade. It’s not just the UK. According to a recent poll, 58% of Muslims in the United States reject First Amendment criticism of Islam as a right. 46% want blasphemy punished, 12% want blasphemers killed.   Muslims believe that sharia law is divine and therefore supersedes all national, “manmade” laws. Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else''… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.   This is a huge change for him. He commissioned “the Runnymede report” on Islamophobia” in 1997, making the term mainstream. Now he says: “Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.”   They got that wrong, too. How many times have we seen a supposed act of “Islamophobia” turn out to have been committed by Muslims? Phillips’ new realism may bring some sanity back to Britain regarding Muslim immigration, and even strengthen the campaigns of U.S. presidential candidates who have called for a halt to that immigration on national security grounds – including that of Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)    Cruz was the only Presidential candidate who stood up for us in the wake of the Garland jihad attack.This is because we are facing the same problem in the U.S., where some of our most respected Muslim leaders have openly stated they want Islamic rule here. These aren’t people on the fringe. These men are mainstream traitors, and are or have been the leaders of the key Muslim organizations in the U.S.: Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America and the North American Islamic Trust: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.” Omar Ahmad, co-founder and long-time Board chairman of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.” Siraj Wahhaj of the Muslim Alliance in North America: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.” Zaid Shakir of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif.: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshalled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time. . . . What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.” Phillips says: “Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it. They won’t.” That’s right. So what is he going to do about the Islamic threat?   Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

It Bears Repeating: Earth Will Start Cooling Down in 2017 !

With the signing today of the Paris Climate Agreement at the United Nations by 172 countries the hoodwinking by climate scientists of so many ignorant politicians to accept man-made global warming is now a fait accomplis.

However, ONE of the world's leading climate change experts claims to have discovered mathematical anomalies which effectively 'disprove' global warming.

Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been vastly exaggerated in error.

The academic, from Perth, Australia, who has passed six degrees in applied mathematics, has analysed complex mathematical assumptions widely used to predict climate change and is predicting world temperature will stagnate until 2017 before cooling, with a 'mini ice age' by 2030.

He says fundamental flaws in how future temperatures may rise have been included in the 'standard models' and this has led to inflated mathematical - and therefore temperature - predictions.

He said: "There is an intellectual stand-off in climate change. Skeptics point to empirical evidence that disagrees with the climate models.''

Yet the climate scientists insist that their calculations showing a high sensitivity to carbon dioxide are correct — because they use well-established physics, such as spectroscopy, radiation physics, and adiabatic lapse rates.

He said he "mapped out" the architecture of the climate models used and found, that while the physics was correct, it had been "applied wrongly".

He claims to have found two reasons for it being wrongly applied, the first being a vastly over estimated impact on our temperature from CO2. He said: "There is NO empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts.''

"Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is.
CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20% of the global warming in the last few decades”. He said the other problem was the predictions had no reflection on changes that have actually been recorded and never saw the current 18-year temperature stagnation we are now in.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he said.“Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.''

"As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars a day worldwide, wasted."

Although he is convinced he is right, he fears it will not be taken on board by world governments.
“These findings here are unlikely to be popular with the establishment. The political obstacles are massive,” he said.

Dr Evans says historic global warming has been down to solar activity - a process called  “albedo modulation” - the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun. Between 2017 and 2021 he estimates a cooling of about 0.3C before the mini ice age in the 2030s.

His theory is unlikely to convince Julia Slingo, UK Met Office chief scientist, who fervently believes increased CO2 levels is the big "smoking gun evidence" for man made climate change.

She said: "Those levels have been rising systematically ever since the Industrial Revolution, and, in fact, have risen very rapidly over the last fifty years, so that the levels we now measure in the atmosphere are at least a third higher than they’ve been for at least 800,000 years. That’s not enough to prove that it’s human activities that are leading to that rise.''
She also argues oxygen levels in our atmosphere have declined for more than 50 years, again caused by burning fossil fuels. "There’s a complete story here, for which there seems to be no other explanation, really, than it is our activities and ways of generating energy that are causing our climate to change."

However, to counter such ''fervour'' an important truth dawns on CSIRO chief Larry Marshall after staff and activists revolt against his planned switch from researching global warming to figuring out

how to cope with it:

“I guess I had the realisation that the climate lobby is perhaps more powerful than the energy lobby was back in the ‘70s - and the politics of climate I think there’s a lot of emotion in this debate.
“In fact it almost sounds more like religion than science to me.”

True. but what conclusions do we then draw about his global warming scientists? Does a religious commitment to global warming make them less likely to accept or announce findings that cast doubt on their creed?

Marshall should go further and discuss how a “religious” belief in global warming theory conflicts with a scientist’s need to be objective. I'm waiting for the next press release.
 

The Way I See It.......There is actually no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts. It looks like faith will have to do.