Global Warming Debate - Not Climate Change

We are all familiar with the fact that when Man-Made Global Warming was exposed a few years back as not only bad science but FAKE science, with many of the "scientists fraudulently manipulating the data" the Marxists changed the BIG LIE mantra from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" which is far less difficult to prove (since the climate is changing) and for more difficult to debunk, (since the climate is changing). The Marxist agreement was called "The Paris Climate Change Agreement," not the Paris "Global Warming" Agreement.

Now notice in the media how when Trump removed us from the Paris Agreement, ALL the discussion has reverted to "Global Warming." They can't make an argument on Climate Change since the earth's Climate has ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING. We have fertile lands where there were deserts and deserts where there were fertile lands and this in JUST the time of recorded written history. We know that the climate change shifts were more pronounced in periods older than that.

If you wonder why I have not engage in the "Climate Debate" this week, it is because I am thoroughly BORED with it. The harping on the BIG LIE by the Marxist/Capitalist Globalists and people responding with passion on both sides of the LIE is just BORING. We have been at it for 30 years. It has all been a LIE. As Trump repeatedly said, "Everything in Washington(DC) is a lie."  Well, every Globalist pronouncement is also a lie.

Man Made Global Warming has been thoroughly disproved. Here were the facts I recorded six years ago, in 2011 and they have not changed.

+++

Sunday, November 20, 2011

TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA: At Least That Is What Glen Beck Thinks.

Let us begin with a simple and important truth, that being that Truth most certainly does have an agenda and that agenda is the survival and well-being of humankind. This is as certain as the fact that Lie has an agenda, the harming and ultimate destruction of humankind. One is life engendering, the other life destroying. If you do not understand this basic premise you don't understand even the custodial care of the mentally ill, who having become so removed from Truth they are no longer able to make choices for their own survival.

Let us take the issue of Global Warming as an example of our battle between truth and lie.

First, there is nothing right wing or left wing about objective evidence. Data is data, it does not have a political will or prejudice. If it is indeed objective evidence then it is proof and not fantasy. If you read my article on Education (How We Think Determines What We Think: The Devolution of Education in America) you will understand the next paragraph. The need to "believe" in Global Warming reflects not just a simple flaw in character or blind spot that could be easily corrected by hearing the truth. It is the result of developmental conditioning, embedded deep into the psyche.

The global warming mythology calls on "the self assurance-feel good response" (I'm a nice person; I care about the environment), what the Behaviorist call "belongingness." Those so programmed clung to that feeling of self-worth created by adherence to the mythology to the point that when the vast majority of the raw data was exposed to have been manipulated, they couldn't believe it. All they could do was demonize the people pointing out the error. Why? It is mental disorder called cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is simply the emotional clinging to false ideas. You love the idea so much you cannot let it go.

When it was proved that there had been no consistent temperature-measuring to the accuracy they were trying to extract from the data, over the periods they were examining, it was ignored. (I speak of the reliability of primitive measuring devices and their location - the effect on them in changing local environments.) But the people pointing out the objective facts were demonized. Why?

When NASA admitted that from actual satellite observation measurements, that the amount of heat that is radiated from the atmosphere into outer space was far greater than any of the climatological models suggested, they ignore it. Why? Same reason.

This fact alone totally destroyed the theory of "greenhouse effect" upon which Global Warming was constructed. (Notice that they never use the term Greenhouse Effect now when it was the constant mantra for YEARS. ) But by this time "science" (read that again) "The science" had become so completely removed from objective observation and fact (that is removed from Truth) that the NASA scientists actually sat on the satellite data for more than three years fearing to release it for fear of being savagely attacked by the "scientific establishment" and the media, and having their funding gutted by the administration! It wasn't until Obama gutted their funding anyway that they released the objective findings. Absolutely amazing!

If the population could be so violently and blindly pro-Global Warming that they could not entertain this clear contrary data, how much less could they entertain the ideas that there were more subtle defects in the theory; like that the various climatological models did not agree, or the idea that there still at this late date might be factors in the regulation of the earth's atmosphere of which we know nothing. This isn't merely stubborn narcissism; personal obtuseness. This is the masses being mind-controlled and manipulated by the elite.

Creating a malleable population has been a long range project of the Progressives. (Read Cultural Marxist Globalists) They have been at it for more than one hundred years and totally in control of education K thru *.* for the last forty years. (Again I suggest reading the article mentioned in paragraph one)

Some people believe that the problems in America and the world would be solved if only the right and the left would meet in the middle, what I call "the blind and stupid radical middle." To create the blind middle is the job of the left/right Hegelian Dialectic Con Game, the Globalist use to herd us.

One has to ask: How could "finding the middle" possibly helped in this confidence-game that has been the conspiracy of Global Warming? What agreement is possible with an agenda that is totally false? Would we really be better served by ceding any part of belief to a totally unproved theory or a programmed lie?

Those educated in our public school system in the last 40 years are likely to argue that "truth is relative, based simply on the perceptions of the individual person and that person's perceptions have no ontological basis." (This is the philosophy known as "Philosophical Relativism - in its radical form Solipsism) This is really an amazing premise, especially when the same people were screaming red-faced about Global Warming, saying "the SCIENCE is settled" as if that was an objective truth. Faced with the DATA, they cling to the mythological (FAKE) Science.

In this instance (and many others) one cannot place on par those on the right who "don't want to believe" and those on the left "who will believe no matter what." This is a spurious paradigm and part of the propaganda Al Gore pushed to our school children. "Your parents are old, they don't want to believe." This is a relativistic argument of equivalency between truth and lie, ignoring the reality of objective truth. It says "my truth is not your truth; your truth is not my truth, but somewhere in this muck of illusion and miscomprehended we must have common ground." Really? Common ground with a lie? It cedes to the Progressives the "idea" of truth when it is not the truth. It eliminates the possibility that objective observation might favor one side of the argument over the other, not withstanding ones political bent or agenda.

What that perception fails to grasp is that so called 'right wing' folk are likely to accept what is proved true. This was seen in the support for the original clean air and clean water acts. (As Trump recently asked, "Who doesn't want clean air and clean water?") This was objective; the places where the air and the water were in difficulty were observable; (and still are today like China and India) and where not observable to the human eye, "upon reason" the conservatives were willing to accept the readings of scientific measurements as to what part contaminants were in the air and water. I'm not speculating, this is what happened. Everyone supported cleaning up the air and water and I could give many other examples of "conservative clarity."

Let us remember that manipulation via pseudo-science isn't new. When in the 1950s Progressivists tried to panic people into belief in extremely limited natural resources, few rational people believed them. In the 1950s we were taught that by the late 1970s humankind would have used all the oil on the planet. You see, we were the parasites sucking the planet's life blood dry. When in the 1970s the Progressivist  began to try to panic people into enslaving laws by proffering the idea that "if we ALL (humankind) didn't do something quickly" we were about to enter a new ice age. (Yes this happened - the attempted panic not the new ice age.) Rational people were skeptical. Why? Because they knew the elite (read Utopian Planning Progressivists) had moved from the "realm of the objective" to the "realm of utopia creation." "We've all got to work together to keep this from happening"; meaning, more government, more centralize control, less individual rights, less national sovereignty.

Seeing their failures with "limited oil supply" and the fear mongering about a new Ice Age the Progressives were more patient with global warming. They tried to condition an entire generation to believe it with a massive propaganda program, financed by what came to be known as "Crime Inc." Al Gore was commissioned to make a movie, the establishment lauded the movie, heaping awards upon it. Billions were spend on advertising and sending propagandists into the public schools as special guest speakers. Countless classroom hours were wasted on the subject. Textbooks were skewed to reflect this mythology. Meanwhile behind the scenes Crime Inc. set themselves up, creating with Chicago Mafia money the "Carbon Bank" in which a who's who list of Progressivist politicians and activists stood to earn hundreds of billions, potentially trillions of dollars.

Unaware of the criminal conspiracy, people of reason were willing to entertain the "possibility there was actual Global Warming." All they asked was credible objective proof. However, the first time a major piece of evidence was ignored by the "people of science" the people of reason recognized that the plot at work was yet another utopia creation effort, (Globalism) meaning more centralized control, less liberty, less individual rights, less national sovereignty, more international control, more distribution of wealth through carbon taxation and credits etc. It was a global, U.N./New World Order/elitists campaign for one world government on a Marxist model and nothing less. Now the lines are drawn with more clarity.

Young folks, I'm speaking to you, since you are the ones who will have to fight this battle. Global Warming is just one of the cons the Marxists have devised to take control of America and destroy Constitutional Rights and Liberties. If your generation wants to preserve American freedom, you've got a lot of remedial learning to do, because your "educators" have not only failed you, but as psycho-political manipulators, they have taught you LIES, like the Big LIE of Man Made Global Warming. Before one can engage in that remedial education process, one has to come to understand how easily one is manipulated by virtue of one's own "education via conditioning." Please read my article on Modern Education mentioned in the first paragraph. You see, instead of an academic education capable of teaching critical thinking, if you are a product of public education and the mass media you are/were "conditioned by your education" instead of being educated. Without true academic education you are at the mercy of the "experts." You are like supplicants awaiting the next pronouncement from the Priestess at Delphi, or the tribesmen, awaiting the words of the shaman. The assaults on our freedom by the Progressivists are complex and multi-layered and Man Made Global Warming/Climate Change is just one front in a multi-front war. 

+++

+++

Does Trump Speak the Language of Stalin, like Joe Scarborough Claims?

Joe Scarborough recently accused Donald Trump of "engaging in the language of Stalin" by calling the Media, "The Enemy of the People."


Longtime Democrat operative, pollster, consultant and assistant to Jimmy Carter, stated on September 21st, 2012, at an event called "Obamanation: Day of Truth" that the American Media/Press had become "the enemy of the people."  Was Pat Caddell speaking in Stalinist language or was he merely reacting in shock to the media's psychological operation concerning the events surrounding Benghazi? 


As the following repost, by Roger Aronoff on September 27, 2012, confirms, Caddell recognized that the Media had turned into a psyops operation for the Deep State; he did not state it quite that way but from the examples he gives, that is obviously the point. This same Deep State Media, supported the Puppet of the Deep State who was Obama, lied and covered for him every single day. Since Trump is NOT a puppet of the Deep State, they lie about him, demean and attack him every day. THIS IS A CIVIL WAR and as Trump and Long Time Democrat Pat Caddell recognized, the Deep State and their wholly owned Press, the CIAmerican Media ARE enemies of the American People.
+++
In remarks to the AIM conference, “ObamaNation: A Day of Truth,” on September 21st, former Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell said, “I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy.” Caddell noted that while First Amendment protections were originally provided to the press so they would protect the liberty and freedom of the public from “organized governmental power,” they had clearly relinquished the role of impartial news providers.


Nowhere was this more evident than during the tragic death of a U.S. ambassador in Libya that was covered up for nine days because the press and the administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack.


“We’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this,” said Caddell. “Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, are under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers.”


Caddell added that it is one thing for the news to have a biased view, but “It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know.”


He closed his talk with these words: “The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and go to serve—to decide that they will now become an active participants—when they decide that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. And it is a threat to the very future of this country if…we allow this stuff to go on, and…we’ve crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.”
+++


Face it, Pat was talking about the media having become more than just FAKE NEWS, more than just "dishonest news," more than just 'incompetent news," as Trump has said, but an instrument of totalitarianism, a state-controlled psyops entity.


It "appeared" under Obama, as Cuddell observed in 2012, that "the State" controlled the media, but when Donald Trump took control of the "Visible State" it became glaringly obvious that some force, other than the visible state controlled the media since they went to war with Trump and the American people. Thus the reality of the Deep State's Control of the American Media was exposed, even so the dullards can see.

Here is Pat Caddell speaking mere days after Benghazi and he is SHAKEN upon seeing the total control of the Media by the Deep State.  "Terror attack on our consulate and our ambassador killed and they won't say it."  "Yesterday, 20 American Embassies are under attack and NO WHERE in the press is it even mentioned."  Can you just imagine how the media today would play embassy attacks on an endless loop all the while blaming Trump? 


+++
The important quotes, pertinent to this article: 



Pat's complete speech, so you know I have taken anything out of context. 


+++

Who is Unduly Influencing Donald Trump - The Paris Climate Agreement

I wrote privately to a friend who has been absolutely paranoid and wringing his hands about the influence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner on the President. Every few days, for a couple of months, I was getting "panic" articles and comments about what Ivanka was doing, "organizing business and industrial leaders to influence her father to stay in the Globalist Paris Climate Agreement." He was even part of a movement to try to get her and her husband fired. They were serious, they wanted them OUT of the White House! Regardless of what the stories said, on a gut level, I simply could not take them seriously.

I wrote him this private opinion:

"The anchor in Trump's life for the last twenty years has been Ivanka and the boys. As a businessman and developer I doubt seriously that Ivanka or her husband influenced Trump to make a single bad decision, he was not predisposed to make. HE will decide on the Paris Agreement, that decision is in his character. I can't tell you what that decision will be, but try as I will, I can't imagine him keeping us in it. That would be diametrically opposed to his core understanding and principles.

"Ivanka, regardless who she really is, what her character and philosophy really are, is as much a part of his "elder life" as his own skin. Asking him to rip off his skin to soothe your political fear, is cruel, to put it mildly. (Insane from fear would have been a better choice of words)  For Trump, it would be foolish to link closeness and undue influence. 

"I personally believe that he is using Ivanka as a "liberal bone" to toss to the Cultural Marxist establishment, to keep everyone off kilter and to let them understand that indeed he listens to their opinions, sort of a back channel to the Globalist enemy. "
I can add that I think too that he uses her to "draw people out" who don't agree with him on some issues. Her activity helped Trump gauge the nature and strength of the opposition. (Which was HUGE.)

At another time I explained to my anxious friend, when he was suggesting "Trump needs to get rid of X, and shut Y up, etc" how from Trump's on testimony and the witness of countless others who have dealt with Trump, he LIKES to hear all sides of any important issue; he wants to hear the very best arguments, especially if they are diametrically opposed. You see, in REAL LIFE, FACTS, DATA Matter. It is the reason that he does not surround himself, like every other president in my lifetime, with "loyalist yes men" but rather independent thinkers, even some like his daughter who are foolishly fans of Globalism and believes the FAKE science of Global Warming. I would bet that the Manhattan Limousine Liberal Ivanka Trump also believes in the FAKE science of Multi-Genderism. Yes, her father was a huge influence on her life, but so was the "culture" in which she was raised. To be raised in Manhattan in the private schools of the rich, or the public schools for that matter and NOT believe in the common consciousness of the Cultural, which is Cultural Marxist, would have made her a social pariah, a weirdo no one would have wished to number as a friend. But instead, she was popular and even friends with the then president's daughter Chelsea Clinton.

Trump loves Ivanka and is very proud of her because she is physically stunning, and he's visual, and she is "sharp" which he often says, meaning she has quick mental acuity and learns quickly. But he does not share her formative "consciousness" which for Trump, despite his father's old school wealth, was Brooklyn working class, not Manhattan Cultural Marxist.

Seeing the strength of the man whose words, movements, intentions and resultant actions I have closely observed for two years now, even exchanging some ideas, I think the idea that ANYONE COULD BE undue influence on Donald Trump, misses the CORE of who he is. Prior to June 1st, 2017, I would not have written that publicly, since it was opinion without sufficient DATA to back it up, though I did expressed this idea many times privately. However, yesterday proved the validity of my opinion, no longer a mere opinion but proved, fact. "No one is capable of unduly influencing Donald Trump" that is simply now a proved fact.

If you doubt me click on this link and read the analysis of how Trump came to his decision on the Paris Climate Change Agreement. For the Washington Post, it is a rare instance of reasonable analysis. Why do I say that, well because it confirms everything I have just told you about Trump, of course. <smile>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-climate-decision-after-fiery-debate-he-stayed-where-hes-always-been/2017/06/01/e4acb27e-46db-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?utm_term=.0824fd2384e6


Here is a mirror of the text incase the original is ever removed by the WaPo.

Inside Trump’s climate decision: After fiery debate, he ‘stayed where he’s always been’

https://www.facebook.com/michael.birnbaum1

11-14 minutes

The pressure on President Trump to remain in the Paris climate accord came from all sides.

Silicon Valley titans, such as Apple chief executive Tim Cook and Tesla chief executive Elon Musk, contacted the White House directly, making clear just how seriously they viewed the issue of climate change — and how important it was to them that the president not withdraw from the international pact.

European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, used a private summit of the Group of Seven world powers to repeatedly and urgently prod Trump to stay true to the climate deal.

And Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, reached out to chief executives and urged them to call her father to make their pro-business case for staying in the accord.

She even personally appealed to Andrew Liveris, the head of Dow Chemical, asking him to spearhead a letter with other CEOs — which ultimately ran as a full-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal in May — directly appealing to Trump to stay in the agreement, according to a person familiar with the effort.

Former president Barack Obama on June 1 said President Trump’s administration “joins a small handful of nations that reject the future” by withdrawing from the Paris climate deal. Former president Barack Obama says President Trump’s administration “joins a small handful of nations that reject the future.” (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

(Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

But in the end, it was not enough.

On Thursday, in a Rose Garden ceremony, the president announced his plan to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord.

Trump had never liked the Paris accord. He viewed it as a “bad deal” and during the campaign had promised his base he would “cancel” the climate pact that he believed was hurting American workers.

His final, deliberative verdict was the same as his initial, gut-level one, according to this account of Trump’s decision-making process, which is based on interviews Thursday with more than a dozen administration officials, Trump confidants, Republican operatives and European diplomats. Even so, the president listened and moderated months of often heated, and at times downright contentious, discussions among his own advisers, as well as scores of outsiders.

[Trump announces U.S. will exit Paris climate deal, sparking criticism at home and abroad]

All but two countries are in the Paris climate agreement. The U.S. could be the third.

“He’s stayed where he’s always been, and not for a lack of trying by those who have an opposite opinion,” said Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president. “He started with a conclusion, and the evidence brought him to the same conclusion.”

Nonetheless, the debate over what Trump should ultimately do — stay in the deal to push for changes or fully pull out — roiled the administration.

The fight pit Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon and White House Counsel Don McGahn — who all pushed for a total withdrawal — against Ivanka Trump, economic chief Gary Cohn and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — who argued that the president would have more leverage by remaining an active participant in the climate deal.

During meetings with the president, Bannon, Pruitt and their allies came armed with reams of documents filled with numbers and statistics showing what they said would be the negative effects on the U.S. economy if the United States remained in the climate deal. They were, in the words of one Republican in frequent contact with the White House, “ready to go to trial.”

“They were presenting facts and figures,” Conway said. “They were really important. That was the evidentiary case.”

Some of those opposed to pulling out of the pact, however, said that much of the data the other side presented was either erroneous, scientifically dubious, misleading or out of date.

The Paris pact was a particular passion for Bannon, who spent the past two weeks consumed by the climate deal, including working feverishly from the West Wing after returning early from Trump’s foreign trip, according to two White House officials familiar with the discussions. He pressed his case directly with the president — arguing that the Paris accord was a product of globalism and unpopular with Trump’s base — and also worked with Pruitt to tilt the talks in that direction, providing political ballast to the policy and legal arguments made by others on his side.

Ivanka Trump, meanwhile, helped lead the effort to stay in the deal. In meetings, she argued that withdrawing could hurt the United States’ global image and weaken its moral authority abroad. She and her allies pushed the case that the president would have more leverage if he remained part of the agreement and negotiated from within.

The opposing camp, however, dismissed the substance of her appeal, brushing off her concerns as a hand-wringing question: “What will the world think of us?”

She also understood she might not be successful in swaying her father. But she helped implement a process in which Trump heard voices from all perspectives, from both inside and outside the administration.

Jared Kushner, a senior White House adviser and Ivanka’s husband, agreed with the president that the Paris agreement was a bad deal. He felt that the carbon emissions standards were too high and that a U.N. fund that helps developing countries counter climate change was costing the United States too much. But he, too, felt Trump should not withdraw but simply renegotiate better terms.

Another, smaller contingent tried for an outside-the-box fix: Marc Short, Trump’s director of legislative affairs, argued that the climate pact could be considered a treaty, in which case the president should send it to the Senate, which would need to ratify it by a two-thirds majority. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Nick Ayers, a senior strategist for Vice President Pence, both supported the idea. But it never gained much traction because the agreement was specifically crafted as an agreement that did not need Senate ratification.

[These titans of industry just broke with Trump’s decision to exit the Paris accords]

Some of the efforts to dissuade Trump from withdrawing actually had the reverse effect, further entrenching his original position. When Trump heard advocates arguing that the era of coal was coming to an end — something Cohn told reporters on last week’s foreign trip and also a frequent talking point by some cable news pundits — Trump only became more adamant that pulling out of the Paris pact could help rescue the U.S. coal industry, said a Republican operative in close contact with the White House.

“When he hears people make comments like ‘Coal jobs don’t matter anymore’ or ‘Those are going away,’ he thinks of all those people who got the election wrong and didn’t realize that, no, these people are important to us,” the operative said. “That’s when his populist message kicks in. It pushes him.”

Pressure from leaders abroad also backfired. One senior White House official characterized disappointing European allies as “a secondary benefit” of Trump’s decision to withdraw.

When Trump touched down at a humid Sicilian air base last week, European leaders were already girding up for an argument at the G-7 summit. In Brussels, the president had just castigated NATO allies for their defense spending. But as leaders spoke during a closed-door NATO dinner, not one directly confronted him, seeking to save their political capital for a contentious discussion about climate change in Italy.

In the end, several officials said, the Group of Seven summit felt more like a Group of Six against One, at least on climate issues, as every other leader went around the table urging Trump to remain in the Paris accord.

“There is a situation where six — if you take the E.U., seven — stand against one,” Merkel said after the meeting.

Merkel, who might be the ­second-most powerful leader in the world after Trump, also pressed a moral-based argument, according to one official who was in the room. If the United States pulled out, what would be the message to countries in Africa that could suffer most from global warming and nations like Fiji that are drowning under rising sea levels?

The official added that another leader brought up political arguments: Does the United States want to preserve the U.S. lead on the topic or hand it off to China and India? And a third made an economic pitch: By encouraging renewable energy, you boost the economy, you boost innovation and you stay competitive.

But Trump seemed unmoved by any of the appeals, instead telling the group that this was what he had promised during his election campaign and that he was protecting his voters, according to the official.

On the plane back from Sicily, Merkel did little to hide her disappointment, according to someone who traveled with her. She raved about Macron and his “keen perception.” There was no such praise for Trump, of whom she could only say, “He listened for hours.”

The Europeans were hardly the only ones upset by the president’s decision. Among administration aides who wanted Trump to stay in the agreement, there was growing frustration, bordering on despondency, that they had been unsuccessful in their effort.

Many had given up high-paying jobs outside the administration, sacrificed their quality of life, and were facing daily leaks and palace intrigue stories — only to feel as if they had been unable to influence the president on an issue of top importance.

Silicon Valley executives and other CEOs were also upset. Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, where he led the firm along with Cohn, took to Twitter for the first time ever Thursday to criticize the Paris withdrawal, writing, “Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.’s leadership position in the world.”

Musk, the CEO of Tesla, who had worked closely with Kushner on several of his key initiatives, also used Twitter to announce his departure from White House advisory panels: “Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.”

A longtime Republican operative who is in touch with the administration said Trump’s decision could jeopardize Kushner’s reputation and outreach on unrelated topics. “If it looks like Jared has gone wobbly on his commitment to climate and is succumbing to some of the baser instincts, that would be a serious problem for his relationship with American CEOs and these Silicon Valley titans,” said the operative, speaking on the condition on anonymity to share a candid opinion.

But the president’s mind was largely made up: He would withdraw from the Paris accord.

If he needed a nudge, though, one came from France over the weekend. Macron was quoted in a French journal talking about his white-knuckled handshake with Trump at their first meeting in Brussels, where the newly elected French president gripped Trump’s hand tightly and would not let go for six long seconds in a show of alpha-male fortitude.

“My handshake was not innocent,” Macron said. He likened Trump to a pair of authoritarian strongmen — Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — and said that he was purposefully forceful because he believed his encounter with Trump was “a moment of truth.”

Hearing smack-talk from the Frenchman 31 years his junior irritated and bewildered Trump, aides said.

A few days later, Trump got his revenge. He proclaimed from the Rose Garden, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

Birnbaum reported from Brussels. Robert Costa and Damian Paletta in Washington and Stephanie Kirchner in Berlin contributed to this report.

A True Profile in Courage.

Sixty-Four of the Richest Corporations in the World publicly and formally supported the Paris Climate Change Agreement and more "privately" supported it, and a consortium of Investors (Soros, Rockefellers and the like) and investment companies controlling more that seventeen TRILLION Dollars in assets, publicly and formally supported the Paris Climate Change Agreement, and Every Eastern and Western European Nation, China and Russia publicly and formally supported the Paris Climate Change Agreement - All the Major Energy Companies, Gas, Oil, and Utility Companies publicly and formally supported the Paris Climate Change Agreement - Do you have a CLUE the Profile in Courage this decision and speech by President Donald Trump represents?

+++

+++

Capitalism is NOT your friend.

Checkers thinkers in a multi-dimensional Chess game.
 
Some "Checkers thinker" has responded to posts on my FB page, I'm assuming he is cutting and pasting since the responses are identical. He says, "Climate Change is used to Destroy Capitalism."


How can that be when every International Capitalist Bank was FOR the Paris Agreement?


How can that be when EVERY Major Capitalist Corporation is for it?


How can that be when even the BIG Energy Companies, like Exxon Mobile, are FOR it?


How can that be when the Billionaire Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, former head of Exxon Mobile literally BEGGED Trump to remain in the agreement?


Could it be that Capitalism isn't what you think it is? These people who were raised in the Cold War Mentality (the Hegelian Dialectic of the Cold War, stated as Capitalism vs Communism) believe unfettered Capitalism is GREAT, without realizing that unfettered Capitalism ALWAYS turns into Monopoly Capitalism, which is what we have today, with 1% of the world's population owning more than 50% of the world's wealth.


They do not understand the principle of protected Free Enterprise inside National Borders, and Regulated International Trade, that protect the Nation's entrepreneurs. International Free Trade, i.e., Capitalism is de facto "Slavery" to the Multi-national Corporations. Those corporations are MORE than immoral, that are amoral and inhumane.


IF you are a Checkers thinking person and think the Globalist System of Capitalism is your friend, remember the Elite Slavers of Red China are "Capitalists."


+++





+++
Amazon and Apple Inc, Backed the Paris Climate Change Agreement.
So did, Bank of America and Berkshire Hathaway and Campbell Soup
and Citigroup and Dow Chemical and DuPont and eBay and Facebook and Gap and General Mills and General Motors and General Electric and Goldman Sachs and Google and The Hartford and HP and Hilton and Intel and Johnson & Johnson and Kellogg and Microsoft and Monsanto and Morgan Stanley and Kike and NRG Energy and PG&E and Salesforce, and Staples and Starbucks and Symantec and Walmart and Wells Fargo - ALL FORTUNE 500 CAPITALIST Companies.

More than 280 institutional investors that together manage more than $17 trillion in assets, including Allianz Global Investors, CalPERS, and HSBC Global Asset Management, recently signed a letter emphasizing their strong support for the Paris agreement.

Please tell me again how the Paris Climate Change Agreement was designed to destroy Capitalism.

Capitalism is NOT what you think it is.

Today was the single biggest victory against Globalism in the last 100 years. In truth, it was more than equal to the killing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which destroyed 40 years of Globalist planning and implementation by the Globalist Tri-Lateral Commission, and rendered Zbigniew Brzezinski's life work in shambles. In fact, when the CIA's Jihadi Legions (ISIS, BOKO HARAM and Al Qaeda) are destroyed, it will be as if he never lived. 

The Exist from the Globalist Climate Change Marxist Con-Game is a Major Blow to Monopoly Capitalism, which is controlled by the Marxist/Corporatists.

Soros has to be spitting curses and even Rex Tillerson can't be pleased.

June the first, Twenty-Seventeen (6/1/2017) will be remembered as "The Declaration of American Economic Independence and Sovereignty Day."

"Our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of American SOVEREIGNTY." - President Donald J. Trump.

Indeed that statement is true. This withdrawal does not destroy the work of 70 years of Globalist Planning and Implementation by the Council on Foreign Relations, because their form of Globalism is many faceted, and deeply embedded in our institutions of government and society, but it is a MAJOR blow to it. 

Your MIND CONTROL MASTERS

Net Worth of your psyops puppets. You people creating the "ratings" for these Cultural Marxist, Globalist, psycho-political agents of the Deep State are IDIOTS with no precedent in human history. You are the dumbest of the dumb of all humans who have ever lived. You CHOOSE your servitude; You CHOOSE to be mind controlled.

Being a Cultural Marxist Mind Control Puppet pays well.

Glenn Beck – $90 Million

Kelly Ripa – $75 Million

Jon Stewart – $80 Million

David Letterman – $400 Million

Stephen Colbert – $45 Million

Seth Meyers – $10 Million

Judy Sheindlin (Judge Judy) – $47 Million

Oprah Winfrey – $2.9 Billion

Tyra Banks – $90 Million

Megyn Kelly – $15 Million

Trevor Noah – $3 Million

Pat Sajak – $45 Million

Bob Barker – $70 Million

Steve Harvey – $100 Million

Drew Carey – $165 Million

Dick Clark – $200 Million

Wendy Williams – $60 Million

Barbara Walters – $150 Million

Larry King – $144 Million

Rachel Ray – $60 Million

Katie Couric -$55 Million

Emeril Lagasse – $50 Million

Khloe Kardashian – $24 Million

Craig Ferguson – $30 Million

Simon Cowell – $550 Million

Ellen DeGeneres – $400 Million

Matt Lauer – $60 Million

NeNe Leakes – $12 Million

Star Jones – $18.5 Million

Daisy Fuentes – $45 Million

Regis Philbin – $150 Million

Erin Andrews – $3 Million

Ryan Seacrest – $350 Million

Robin Roberts – $25 Million

Adrienne Bailon – $500,000

Conan O’Brien – $75 Million

Jimmy Fallon – $25 Million

Jay Leno – $350 Million

Joy Behar – $8 Million

Anton Du Beke – $10 Million

Anderson Cooper – $100 Million

Dr. Phil – $400 Million

Ty Pennington – $10 Million

Ricki Lake – $15 Million

Alton Brown – $13 Million

Lisa Kerney – $14.8 Million

Lindsey Czarniak – $3 Million

Michelle Beisner – $3 Million

Samantha Steele Ponder – $12 Million

Molly Qerim – $3 Million

Cari Champion – $2 Million

Michelle Beadle – $1.5 Million

Doctor Oz – $4 Million

John Oliver – $5 Million

Bret Baier – $16 Million

Shepard Smith – $25 Million

Neil Cavuto – $23 Million

Chelsea Handler – $40 Million

Jerry Springer – $75 Million

Jimmy Kimmel – $35 Million

James Corden – $12 Million

Larry Wilmore – $3 Million

Michael Strahan – $55 Million

Diane Sawyer – $80 Million

Sir David Attenborough – $35 Million

Tomi Lahren – $500,000

Chuck Barris – $120 Million

Guy Fiere – $8.5 Million

Bill O’Reilly – $70 Million

Sean Hannity – $80 Million


You think some of these people are your friends. You "feel" about them like they are family members. You accept what these people say to you "without filter." You mimic how they act, you accept what they accept as “acceptable” no matter how warped, twisted and anti-family, and insane it is, and you reject what they reject.

This list is a cross-section of the psycho-political manipulators who “create the culture.” With very few exceptions they are Cultural Marxist, (Politically Correct) Pro-Gay, Pro-LGBTXYZ Insanity, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Genocide, Anti-Christian, Anti-Family and YOU have made them RICH.
 
Your own lives and the lives of your children SUFFER from their influence, yet you keep them “popular” and sit for hours in a state of light hypnosis, soaking up every anti-LIFE, anti-GOD thought they plant in your minds. Congratulations IDIOTS! Look around at the sickness of this Nation that is feminizing your boys and twisting your girls, a nation turned "security state" that cannot protect you from Terrorism (chooses not to) that has destroyed every ounce of privacy you previously owned.

You see, the psychological war has two facets, (1) the purveyors of the Cultural Marxist (Politically Correct) BIG LIE, and then (2) taking the measure of how well they are “twisting you” by monitoring everything you write and say. THIS is the apparatus of Mind Control, (and only a small part of it) and each one of these people WITHOUT EXCEPTION is an apparatchik of that apparatus.