Archive for climate change

What is COP26?

Posted in uncategorized with tags , on October 30, 2021 by andelino

Over two weeks in November, world leaders and national negotiators will meet in Scotland to discuss what to do about climate change. It’s a complex process that can be hard to make sense of from the outside, but it’s how international law and institutions help solve problems that no single country can fix on its own.

I worked for the United Nations for several years as a law and policy adviser and have been involved in international negotiations. Here’s what’s happening behind closed doors and why people are concerned that COP26 might not meet its goals.

Read more at “What is COP26 and what to expect from the summit”

Code Red for Humanity

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , on September 2, 2021 by andelino

Mankind has “unequivocally caused” climate change, and the damage is “irreversible for centuries to millennia.” That is the conclusion of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The report describes five climate futures of differing severities. The most extreme scenario predicts that by 2100, the global temperature will rise by 38 to 42 degrees Fahrenheit, making the Earth 30.2 percent wetter in general and making regional drought events four times likelier.

Saleemul Huq, director of the International Center for Climate Change and Development in Dhaka, remarked: “The new IPCC report is not a drill but the final warning that the bubble of empty promises is about to burst. It’s suicidal and economically irrational to keep procrastinating.”

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said: “The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk.”

The experts are telling us that our climate has changed, we are probably past the point of no return, and we must make radical changes now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to save our planet. But the truth is, this is an attack against the United States and you.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been around since 1988 and has a long history of alarmist assertions. Spiked noted that the organization’s 2007 report claimed North African crop production would drop 50 percent by 2020, and that 80 percent of Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035, threatening water supplies in Asia.

The 2014 report included a worst-case scenario in which global temperatures would rise 41 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Researchers later admitted that this scenario had only an estimated 3 percent chance of occurring.

Meanwhile, climate scientists are now touting a new modeling system known as CMIP6 as producing the most accurate climate models ever, and the model is predicting more extreme outcomes. However, many scientists are questioning the accuracy of this new system, particularly its Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) setting.

Its setting is 41 degrees Fahrenheit, about 1 to 6 degrees higher than most climate models. This makes the model much more sensitive and helps it produce more cataclysmic outcomes of higher temperatures, increasing rainfall in some places, increasing drought in others, and ominously rising oceans.

Carbon Brief explained that scientists are investigating the rationale behind the high sensitivity setting, writing:

“A number of climate scientists have expressed skepticism of the high-end values, arguing that they are inconsistent with evidence from palaeoclimate records and other lines of evidence. The fact that a number of models available so far have a very high ECS means either future warming may be worse than we thought or a number of prominent climate models may be getting climate sensitivity wrong.”

Pseudo-scientific governmental models have been used to scare people before—and drive forward policies. The changed world we live in traces back, in no small degree, to supposedly scientific models predicting Covid-19 death rates far higher than the seasonal flu.

Governments around the world used this “scientific” rationale to shut down populations of billions of people. If scientists—especially government-associated scientists with an agenda—were wrong on the doomsday covid modeling, might they be wrong on the doomsday climate change modeling?

The efficacy of the models themselves is a secondary, however. The mainstream media is amplifying and accrediting doomsday scenarios. When the science behind it is incomplete at best and intentionally skewed at worst, why use such aggressive scare tactics?

The Climate Change Hoax is the worst political/ scientific scandal since generations. Our hopelessly compromised establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climate gate whitewash to establish a communist dictatorship under the United Nations. Stop Agenda 21/Agenda 2030. Reform or dissolve the UN.

It’s about power. Environmental regulation gives significantly more power to bureaucrats. The governments most in favor of confronting climate change are the socialist, Marxist-type. Climate change has become something like a religion for the radical left. They believe it as an article of faith regardless of the evidence. It is a tool they are using to increase their control.

The latest report of the less-than-accurate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is useful to elites who are pushing Americans into a socialist regime. This artificially created, unscientific threat is useful for undermining the remaining freedoms and biblical principles that some Americans still cling to. The second prong of this attack is the most insidious: Climate change is actually being used to undermine your faith in God!

The premise of man-made climate change is that flooding, droughts, forest fires and hurricanes are caused by pollutants produced by humans. Polluting God’s creation is wrong, and extreme weather events have increased over the past few years. But pollution is not the cause of these disasters. The cause is God. Many scriptures show that God controls the weather.

Here is another clear statement of God’s power over the weather and it explains why God uses it as He does: “He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them. At his direction they swirl around over the face of the whole earth to do whatever he commands them. He brings the clouds to punish people, or to water his earth and show his love.” (Job 37:11-13)

The Bible teaches that God is love, and He hates to see us indulging in sin and thereby destroying ourselves. He uses weather, among other things to correct us for sinning against His law of love (Deuteronomy 28; Leviticus 26; Psalm 119; Amos 4:7-9; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8).

Extreme weather events are increasing, but the linear cause-effect relationship is not to our CO2 emissions but to our sins. The solution is not radical policies that push God even further out of the picture. The solution is true repentance toward God. We need faith in the Bible, not in the problematic ideology of climate change progressivism.

God causes these conditions as punishment for pushing Him out of our lives. He is trying to get people to return to Him! This prophecy should help us see the connection between extreme weather upsets and human sin. Certainly we must pray, but we must also return to God! Returning to God requires real, tangible action.

Where do you want to put your faith? In a report of men or in the God of the Bible? The Bible says that weather disasters will continue to get worse in the future. But you can take real, tangible action and have faith in God.

Wildfire Fanaticism

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 8, 2020 by andelino

According to California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, “global warming” caused the big fires ravaging his state, as well as its two “ideological sidekicks”, Washington and Oregon:

“The debate is over around climate change,” Newsom said as he toured a burn area in Northern California. “Just come to the state of California. Observe it with your own eyes. It’s not an intellectual debate. It’s not even debatable any longer.”

He also said he’s “exhausted that we have to continue to bait this issue. This is a climate damn emergency. This is real.” So don’t blame him.

But there’s every reason to blame him and his “greenie” policies that are quite literally “fueling” the fire destruction.

Since the entire press that is searchable on Google repeats the global warming “blather”, I decided to consult some real science and got quite a different picture, and not a flattering one to Newsom.

According to the Cal State University fire scientists, whose website indicates they are the only ones studying this, the number one reason for the increased incidence of California’s fires is:

The forest floor grows dense with flammable dead branches and brush when it’s not cleared out, either manually or when burned. In many parts of California’s woodlands, these forest “fuels” have not burned or been cleared for decades, due in part to fire suppression policies by state and federal agencies.

“One of the reasons we’re observing more fires is because of 100 years of poor Forest Service policy where we didn’t allow prescribed fire or wildfires to burn,” says Craig Clements, Ph.D., director of the San José State University’s Fire Weather Research Laboratory and associate professor of meteorology and climate science.

To understand the history and context of “wildfire suppression” in the U.S., you have to go back to the Great Fires of 1910. After these enormous wildfires ravaged three million acres across Idaho, Montana and Washington, the then-young U.S. Forest Service made it their singular policy to stop fires whenever possible.

It wasn’t until the 1970s that policy shifted from fire control to fire management, with the recognition that some fire—including prescribed burns—is a necessary part of the wood land ecosystem. But decades of still-unburned forest means today’s wood lands are dense with vegetation that’s ready to spark. Drought conditions have only intensified the impending threat in many parts of the state.

In a 2009 report, Chris Dicus, Ph.D., professor of wood land fire and fuels management at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, wrote that before the Gold Rush, there were approximately 50 to 70 trees per acre in California’s forestland’s. Today, there are more than 400 trees per acre.

Another contributing factor to the growing “forest fuel load” is the increasing number of dead or dying trees caused by bark beetle infestations. These insects, along with the drought, are responsible for killing 129 million trees across California since 2010, quite literally adding “fuel to the fire.”

The sheer size of the current “rash of fires” would attest to a lot of uncleared growth, much of it damaged and dead from beetles. Nobody was allowed to clear that brush because … “ecology.” Never mind that the natural state of California is to have small natural fires that groom the brush and help wildflowers take seed.

Additionally, California’s topography, as cited in the piece, can create some big weather patterns as well as fire tornadoes due to the slopes of the land. Nope, the “greenies” want California to resemble the forest-primeval of Wagnerian Germany, with lots of trees. To heck with the climate conditions that include a natural propensity for fires. Uncleared brush and dead trees mean bigger fires.

The second reason listed is “climate change,” but wait! The scientists very specifically cite heat waves, which doesn’t sound like the crazy hot-cold-wild phenomenon bruited about by the climate change lobby. It’s perfectly true that the state has been having heat waves, and yes, the drying action of the heat tends to create tinder for fires. The heat waves come and the heat waves go. Because they’re cyclical, they are not a constant factor supporting the claim that the entire earth’s temperature is heating up. Instead, they are the result of high-pressure phenomena driving the temperature higher in localized places, which in this case happens to be California.

And where do these heat waves come from? Well, solar activity is one candidate – the world is in a sunspot drought called a “solar minimum” which, while it could create cooler temperatures, also leaves huge parts of the sun’s atmosphere exposed, according to this U.K. Express article, citing more scientists. The jury is out about what the sunspots do, but there are credible sources that say they do contribute to rising temperatures.

High-pressure systems are another. According to

“A heatwave is a period of unusually hot or humid weather that lasts at least two or three days – and remaining hot throughout the nights – that affects large areas. Heat waves are caused by a system of higher atmospheric pressure, whereby air from upper levels of the atmosphere descends and rotates out. As it descends, it compresses, increasing the temperature. The outward flow, meanwhile, makes it difficult for other systems to enter the area, and the large size and slow speed of the hot air causes the heatwave to remain for days or even weeks. The lack of clouds means that an affected area is struck with strong sunlight.”

To attribute the entire “global warming” phenomena to a localized “weather” event in one place is kind of absurd.

The third reason cited by the Cal State fire scientists is human activity – leftist housing policies drive poorer people into the wilderness areas where fires are more likely to happen. The scientists say that 95% of fires are caused by people, either “intentionally or unintentionally.”

The proof of the pudding that California’s fires are not caused by some vaguely defined global warming is the fact that these fires are only happening in places where bad “greenie policy” is the rule. California and its sidekicks Oregon and Washington are up to their necks in these “fire-starter” greenie policies.

You sure as heck don’t see this stuff going on in Mexico, where there are some fires, but they rarely occur near populated areas and are fairly insignificant in scope. Brush is “cleared” in Mexico. Fire “hazards” are removed. Keep in mind that the weather and topography are about the same in Mexico as in California, except that Mexico is actually somewhat hotter.

To paraphrase Tom Wolfe, it seems as if the dark night of global warming, which hovers over the world, somehow only lands in California. The west coast governors who “blame” global warming for their states’ ills would be smart to ask Mexico how to fix this. But they won’t. They’ll just keep blaming “global warming” and hope it leads to more “taxes and more state power.” To the rest of us, though, it’s clear enough — California’s localized conditions are the perfect “tinder” for creating big, big, fires.

This is exactly the same thing that happened with the historically devastating fires that happened in Australia last summer. 90% of the fires that devastated Australia’s east coast, killed many people and wiped out huge, countless numbers of endangered wildlife, were deliberately started by “climate change activists”. If they can’t find a climate crisis naturally, they’ll make one. And then blame it on freedom, capitalism and anyone who isn’t a frightened rabbit.

According to the Cal Fire San Bernardino Unit, “the El Dorado Fire, burning near Oak Glen in San Bernardino County, was caused by a smoke generating pyrotechnic device, used during a gender reveal party.” Chalk this one up to stupidity, not climate change.

Likewise, the Almeda Fire in Oregon, which has burned more than 600 homes, cannot be tied to climate change whatsoever because it was caused by “arsonists.”  As Ashland Police Chief Tighe O’Meara said, “We have good reason to believe that there was a human element to it. We’re going to pursue it as a criminal investigation until we have reason to believe that it was otherwise.”

The fires in California and Oregon are not due to climate change. They are due to “arson” and sheer “stupidity” on the part of many, including those who are responsible for the environmental stewardship that is supposed to prevent them in the first place.

There are several more reports of arsonists instigating the blazes that are currently destroying hundreds of thousands of acres in the West. Despite these facts, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), recently said, “Mother Earth is angry. She’s telling us, whether, she’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, whatever it is, that climate crisis is real and has an impact.”

Of course, Pelosi didn’t offer one iota of “evidence” to support her contention that climate change is somehow responsible for all this. And since when did Mother Earth begin speaking to the Speaker of the House?

Not to be outdone, California Gov. Gavin Newsom also laid blame for his state’s out-of-control wildfires on climate change. “I say this lovingly — not as an ideologue, but as someone who prides himself on being open to argument, interested in evidence — but I quite literally have no patience for climate change deniers. It’s completely inconsistent, that point of view, with the reality on the ground, the facts as we are experiencing. You may not believe it intellectually, but your own eyes, your own experiences tell a different story.”

Conveniently, Newsom failed to mention that California has one of the poorest records of implementing commonsense “environmental” stewardship protocols, which no doubt has played a significant factor in the Golden State’s proclivity for wildfires over the past several years.

According to California’s state oversight agency, “During its review, the Commission found that California’s forests suffer from neglect and mismanagement, resulting in overcrowding that leaves them susceptible to disease, insects and wildfire.”

In other words, under decades of Democratic leadership, California has woefully under-invested in forest management efforts, which have left forests grossly overgrown and prone to wildfire.

Making matters worse, California’s insistence on becoming the “renewable energy utopia” of the United States has led the state’s primary energy utility, PG&E, to disregard properly maintaining existing energy infrastructure.

As the San Diego Union Tribune reports, “every dollar spent on additional costs of renewable energy results in a dollar not available to spend on culling vegetation, insulating power lines, placing lines underground and other measures.”

As if that were not enough, the article also notes, a report prepared by the independent consulting firm Beacon Economics for the San Francisco-based think tank Next 10 estimated California wildfires last year produced about nine times more emissions than were reduced across the entire state’s economy between 2016 and 2017 — and wildfires contributed more than the commercial, residential or agriculture sectors did in 2017.”

Ironically, Newsom and his predecessors naïve attempt to make the Golden State the renewable energy “Mecca” has actually led to more carbon emissions because the state’s abundant forests have been turned into a giant “tinderbox.”

Adding insult to injury, Newsom has pledged to double-down on his efforts to make California more reliant on renewable energy, regardless of the uptick in wildfires and rolling blackouts.

And the claim that wildfires are increasing is “100 percent false”. According to the Congressional Research Service, the prevalence of wildfires has decreased over the past three decades. As the report notes, “Over the past 10 years, there were an average of 64,100 wildfires annually and an average of 6.8 million acres burned annually. In 2019, 50,477 wildfires burned 4.7 million acres nationwide, below the annual average for both statistics.”

 John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things. They cannot be altered by our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions.” Fact-shunners like Gov. Newsom and Nancy Pelosi ought to put their wishes and passions aside and deal with the reality that their state is being decimated by wildfires due to their incompetence and ignorance, not because of so-called climate change.

“Sniffy” Joe Biden also “chimed” in. As expected, he condemned Trump as a “climate denier” calling him a “climate arsonist” drumming up fear of fires, floods, hurricanes, and blamed it on Trump, which is rich considering that “ANTIFA” is Joe Biden’s base.

“If Donald Trump gets a second term, these hellish events will become more common, more devastating, and more deadly,” he forecasted. Biden also said Trump has disdain for “science,” but that science has been purchased by the Illuminati and they get to fund and then cherry pick data that suits their agenda.

Another “greenie”, Jay Inslee ran for president with only one platform in mind—“climate change. He flopped and dropped, but climate change has always been on the Illuminati’s agenda and their “plannedemic” hasn’t changed that.

Those at the top of the pyramid still want us to transition to a new “de-industrialized age” in which the middle class are expected to give up “fossil fuels, their cars, their air conditioning, their jobs as well as their human dignity”, and become “poor serfs dependent on a leviathan globalist and socialist government.” Politicians such as Jay Inslee and Gavin Newsom are their “point men” out to make that transition happen.

Inslee and Newsom claim the millions of acres on fire in the west were caused by said climate change, without offering one particle of proof whatsoever. In fact, it’s most likely the fires were set by their allies, the BLM and Antifa radical socialists, who were only too happy to peacefully “burn it all down.”

The fires didn’t occur naturally due to lightning strikes. They were sparked by anarchist matches, the same anarchists who burned Democrat cities while the Democratic mayors and governors stood by silently, or even encouraged them.

All stops are now being pulled to defeat President Trump from winning a second term. The Democrat Socialists couldn’t get him out of office with their invented Russia collusion witch hunt. They couldn’t remove him by impeachment. So they trotted out a fake pandemic and blamed it on Trump. They will blame the fires on Trump. They certainly won’t blame themselves for their own forest mismanagement. They will accuse Trump of inaction and being a climate change “denier.”

The “Illuminati’s” continue to push their Green New Deal, Agendas 21 and 30, as well as socialism, which will result in the conflagration of the middle class.

Unfortunately, we are living in a world where facts don’t matter much anymore. For instance, the wildfires that have swept across the western United States over the past few weeks are being almost universally blamed on climate change, even though the facts tell otherwise.

Amazing! The global warming crisis/ forest fire “fanaticism” seem to be only localized to Blue States!

Fire Fanaticism
Australia Aboriginal planners say the bush needs to burn
Western Wildfires Are Due to Arson and Stupidity
Wildfire Media Blackout
CA Fires Mainly Caused by Century of Suppressing Controlled Burns
Wildfires Will Become Worse Thanks To Decades-Old Liberal Policies
Western Wildfires Are Due to Arson and Stupidity, Not Climate Change

Hypocrite of the Year

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , on December 15, 2019 by andelino

It is with “sarcastic” pleasure that I share the “ridiculous” news that Greta Thunberg has been “chosen” by the Global socialists the “Hypocrite of the Year.”

Greta’s nomination made “evil” Orange Man mad, as he viciously attacked the teenager with this murderous tweet, intending to kill: “So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!”

Greta’s handlers quickly edited her Twitter profile to say, “A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”

Guess which “friend” took Greta to a good “old fashioned movie” to chill.

Obviously, to be named “Hypocrite of the Year” Greta Thunberg needed to pass Hypocrite Uncle Joe’s “smell and fondling test,” or at least that’s what “Creepy Joe” wanted her to believe.

In addition to altering our “behavior” to save the planet, we must also alter the “history of art” and stop pandering to the “sexist and unrealistic body” images of women and girls.

Working on Anger Management problems.

I submit an example of such “corrected and improved” piece of art. Do not be fooled by appearances. Just because Greta appears to be a teenage “dropout” with no life experience who’s trotted out to spout “Marxist” talking points to world leaders who already “believe” them, doesn’t mean she isn’t.


With the dominant “ideology” being global socialism, Greta is being taught to be a global socialist, and to shout “How Dare You!” at anyone perceived as the enemy of that “Climate Change” doctrine.

If the dominant ideology were “National Socialism” (Nazi), Greta would’ve been taught to be a “National Socialist” and then she’d shout “How Dare You!” at anyone perceived as the enemy of the “Nazi” doctrine.

The Fate of Secular Saint Greta Thunberg

Ecological Sins

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on December 9, 2019 by andelino

Green Pope Francis told a group of lawyers we are thinking about to introduce the category of “ecological sin” into official Catholic teaching.

We must introduce in the “Catechism” of the Catholic Church the “ecology sin” against the common home, because it is a duty, the pope said in addressing participants in an international conference on penal law.

More specifically, Francis said, are all those actions that can be considered as “ecocide,” for instance, “the massive contamination of air, land and water resources, the large-scale destruction of flora and fauna, and any action capable of producing an ecological disaster or destroying an ecosystem.”

Ecocide “is to be understood as the loss, damage or destruction of the ecosystems of a given territory, so that its utilization by inhabitants has been or can be seen as severely compromised,” he said, adding that such a sin is “a fifth category of crimes against peace, which should be recognized as such by the international community.”

The pontiff said that such actions are “usually” caused by corporations, and “an elementary sense of justice would require” that they be “punished” for them.

An ecological sin is “an action or omission against God, against one’s neighbor, the community and the environment,” Francis said, quoting the Fathers of the recently concluded Pan-Amazon Regional Synod.

“It is a sin against future generations and is manifested in acts and habits of pollution and destruction of the harmony of the environment, in transgressions against the principles of interdependence and in the breaking of networks of solidarity between creatures.”

“Above and beyond its sinfulness, failure to care for the environment is an injustice and a crime,” Francis suggested and should be legally enforced. “I would like to appeal to all the leaders and actors in this area to contribute their efforts to ensuring adequate legal protection for our common home,” he said.

The pope’s words coincided with the release of a new survey by the Pew Research Center, which found that church going Americans “accept” their clergy’s on spiritual matters, but generally “distrust” their advice on issues such as “climate” change.

Pew found that 68 percent of U.S. adults who attend religious services at least a few times a year say they have “a lot” of confidence in the advice of their clergy on “growing closer” to God, yet just a small fraction of this number (13 percent) say they have this confidence when the topic is “climate change.”

Thou Shalt Not Be a Climate Change Denier.

Pope Francis has thrown his “moral” weight behind the battle against “anthropogenic” climate change, but has also acknowledged that the Church has no “authority on scientific questions.”

In his 2015 encyclical letter on the environment, Francis urging nations and individuals to exercise more responsible “stewardship” of the created world, but insisted that he wanted to encourage “debate” rather than pronounce on environmental issues.

“On many concrete questions,” he wrote, “the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views.”

“Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics,” Francis said.

“But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.”

Not surprising that “Communist” Jorge Mario Bergoglio would want to “destroy” religion. Like many “Cult Leaders,” Francis is playing “god” and tries to rewrite the Catechism to fit his “personal” ideology.

Nowhere does it tell us in the Bible we can’t get into “Heaven” for not believing in “climate extremism.”

If you are claiming “ecological sins” you are in effect saying that the “sins are against God” rather than inanimate objects.

“There is no possible sin against planet Earth. When we abuse the natural world, people, animals or plants, we are sinning against God their creator, who gave them to us to use for the right purposes and in accordance with their nature and ours.” 

The only “targets of sin” are people. The Cardinals will eventually have to rise up and remove this “Marxist” globalist.

I would not be surprised if Pope Francis soon substitutes the “Qur’an” for the “Bible” and thereby leading his “cult followers” straight to hell.

Pope Eliminates Pork from Banquet out of Respect for Muslims
Religious Americans Distrust Clergy Advice on Climate Change 

Eat More Babies

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on October 7, 2019 by andelino

A woman with a foreign accent thanked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during a October 3rd public town hall meeting at the Queens Public Library in Corona, New York for her work to battle “climate change” but believes we need to take more radical steps, including “eating more babies.”

It’s an insane clip.  Watch for yourself below, and note Sandy O’s reaction, or lack thereof:

“We are going to be here for much longer because of the climate crisis. We only have a few months left!” she said as AOC nodded along.

“I love that you support the New Green Deal, but it’s not getting rid of fossil fuel, it’s not going to solve the problem fast enough. A Swedish professor is saying that we can eat dead people but that’s not fast enough, she continued as she removed her jacket to reveal a protest statement on her t-shirt. So I think your next campaign slogan has to be this: We’ve got to start eating babies, revealing the shirt that read, “Save The Planet, Eat The Children.”

“We don’t have enough time, there’s too much CO2! All of you,” she continued, turned to the crowd, “you’re a pollutant! Too much CO2! We have to start now!” adding “Please, you are so great, I’m so happy that you are really supporting the New Green Deal, but it’s not enough.”

As the woman continued, organizers moved in to get her out of the room. “So just stopping having babies is not enough, we need to eat the babies!” she said. “This is very serious. Please give a response!”

While looking the “Eat-The-Baby-Lady” right in the eye, crazy Sandy O says to the woman: “Thank you, thank you” and treats the question as a serious proposal.

“Yeah, no, so, one of the things that’s very important to us is that we need to treat the climate crisis with the urgency that it does present. Luckily we have more than a few months,” she says, adding, “But we do need to hit net-zero in several years, but I think we all need to understand that there are a lot of solutions we have, that we can pursue, and that if we act in a positive way there’s space for hope. We are never beyond hope.”

After the event, the “lunatic” Bronx congresswoman sought to downplay the woman’s bizarre proposal, and instead said her behavior was a reason to enact “Medicare for All.”

“Hey everyone! We had a fabulous town hall tonight & I’ll be highlighting some moments from it. At one point I was concerned there was a woman in crisis & want to ensure we treat the situation compassionately. Let’s not mock or make a spectacle & let’s work on Medicare for All!” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 4, 2019

The video spread across the internet with both, President Trump and his son Don Jr., tweeting about it.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded by saying:

“This person may have been suffering from a mental condition and it’s not okay that the right-wing is mocking her and potentially make her condition or crisis worse.  Be a decent human being and knock it off.”

It’s not too astonishing that Democrats are trying to rationalize this woman’s outburst but have still not stated that eating babies is not necessary to save the planet.

Blaming the absurdity on a “mental condition” is scapegoating, when considering that crazy Sandy O traffics in fear and doomsday ideologies by telling people that the world is ending in 12 years.

Somehow eating babies in order to save the planet is outrageous, but when Bernie Sanders endorsed increasing and funding abortions, especially in third-world countries, to save the planet, that was totally rational?

Even if this woman was a plant or troll, Ocasio-Cortez still has not yet made any statement that eating babies is probably not a good idea.

That woman stood up in that town hall meeting and literally advocated “eating babies” to fight the weather, and the room full of Democrats just quietly accepted it, proving that there isn’t nothing ridiculously “anti-human” and “unethical” that Democrats won’t embrace.

You would think if the obvious troll was obvious, Sandy O could have easily “condemned” the notion of eating babies and had the woman removed.  Instead, crazy Sandy O thanked her twice suggesting that “there are a lot of solutions.”

AOC later “alleged” that the woman was a Trump supporter:

“Turns out the woman yelling was a Trump supporter. Doesn’t rule out potential mental issue (Drs do that) but good to know they were not in crisis. Earlier this year I was stalked & very nearly hurt by a disturbed person. I don’t take chances & immediately try to de-escalate.” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 4, 2019

By the way, the idea of “eating dead people” to save the world from Climate Change is no joke. Just last month at something called the Gastro Summit, Swedish behavioral scientist Magnus Söderlund did a whole PowerPoint presentation arguing we must “overcome our taboo against cannibalism” and eat our own dead to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability.

The “Eat-The-Baby-Lady” at the town hall was only taking this idea to the next logical step, a step that combines “cannibalism with the Democrats’ utter disregard for newborn babies.”

The Democrat party is now openly pro-infanticide, openly okay with slaughtering a child post-birth, so why not go for the two-fer? Hey, eating the baby not only aborts it, it’s one less carbon-emitting feast for the whole family!

Returning to this sick and twisted loon AOC, how difficult would it have been for her to show a little moral leadership and say, “You know, we’re not going to eat babies, okay?”

Not too long ago you would have laughed away at the idea of “same-sex marriage, of the idea of biological men competing in women’s sports, of your daughter being forced to share a bathroom with a mentally ill man in a dress, or a CNN anchor arguing there’s something wrong with a little girl made uncomfortable after being exposed to a biological man’s penis in the girl’s locker room.”

Today’s left is openly celebrating “socialism, openly condones post-birth abortions, openly cheers the assassination of police officers, and openly supports and encourages the jack-booted terrorists called Antifa.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez herself is an open “socialist” and today’s face of the “warped and morally illiterate” Democrat Party who won’t take a stand against “eating babies or cannibalism.”

Cannibalism for Humans it’s the Ultimate Fantasy

Children and Climate Change

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , on April 22, 2019 by andelino

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria “Sandy” Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested that people should consider not having children due to climate change because there is a “scientific consensus” that life will be hard for kids.

This women amazes me. I can barely keep up with her “intellect” and are spellbound watching her as she “elucidates” her points while preparing dinner in her “humble” kitchenette, slicing potatoes and pale beets for the viewers.

“Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, ‘Is it okay to still have children?'”

Unfortunately her wisdom has come much too late since already millions of children have been “born” into this world of “destruction and despair” since spewing her bullshit on the topic of child rearing.

On the other hand, if one is simply too busy to “abort” during pregnancy, New York Democrats will accommodate late term abortion up to possibly the 4th or 5th grade whatever comes first.

Not having children and aborting babies helps preserve the “Green New Deal” for the next generation.

‘I’m The Boss. How ‘Bout That?’ No better phrase could sum up the political position of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Her policies aren’t her political positions they are her commands.

She really means it. She means to be “The Boss of Society” and everything that goes on in society. She means to “rule” over society and she means for the rest of us to be her “subjects.”

There once was a time when the Left was very “open and honest” about it. Their political goal was to establish a “dictatorship.” Both Hitler and Stalin proudly and openly stood as dictators on principle.” World War II opened everyone’s eyes to the “horror” of dictatorship throughout the entire “socialist” world.

Adolf Hitler: Der Führer
Benito Mussolini: Il Duce
Fidel Castro: El Jefe
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: The Boss
All of them socialists.

Today you have to love what passes for “logic” in her head. We have endlessly “debated and debunked” the crisis of man-made “Climate Change.”

It used to be “Global Cooling”, but when that didn’t work out it became “Global Warming”, and when that didn’t pan out either, it became “Climate Change.”

Now AOC has come up with a “plan” that will stop this insidious “Climate Change.” I’m not sure what “universal healthcare” and wages for those who do “not want to work” have to do with “stabilizing” the climate, but that is another story entirely.

Anyone who questions her plan is of course denigrated as an “anti-science” fool. Anyone who says her plan is “impractical” is told to sit down because they have not come up with a plan to “deal with the crisis” themselves.

This is like saying that there is a tiger outside the door of AOC’s apartment in the Bronx. There is of course no tiger outside the door because tigers do not live in the Bronx, but somebody told her there was a tiger out there, and she believes them because somebody else, who is selling tiger-proof pajamas, told her there was a tiger out there too.

So AOC has developed a plan for dealing with that tiger. It is a “foolish” plan, an “expensive” plan, and an “unworkable” plan, but it is a plan. You do not have a plan, because you know that there is no tiger outside the door. You are not even going to “waste” your time coming up with a plan to deal with a tiger outside the door.

Because you do not have a plan for “dealing” with the tiger outside the door, you are not allowed to point out the “flaws” in her plan, or point out that there is in fact no “tiger” in the first place.

Marc Morano, the executive director of Climate Depot, says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s extreme views on climate change actually help him make the case against “man-made global warming.”

“She’s doing the work of climate skeptics for us. Having her out there every day making these wacky claims, questioning whether we should have kids — I can’t think of anything better to discredit the man-made global warming fear movement than AOC,” said Morano.

Morano also slammed the congresswoman’s Green New Deal bill, saying he believes the bill is more about “wealth redistribution” and central planning than the “environment or climate.”

Her Body, Her Choice

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on March 23, 2019 by andelino

I took my cat in for an abortion

I just wasn’t ready for kittens. Maybe later when things are better and I’m in the right space for kittens, but not now. Why should my life be disrupted by visits to the vet, shots, getting the little fur-balls spayed and neutered, extra cat litter, and the list just goes on and on. Also, it’s the best thing for Athena, my tabby who has a “right to choose.” I know my cat, and I can tell you she’s not ready for kittens, either. So, we decided it’s off to the vet to have her litter aborted, and it was such a positive experience.

First, the vet took a sonogram of the little kitty fetuses. I still have the picture, and it’s one of my dearest possessions. Also, the vet had a group of interns who had come to see different cat abortion techniques, and I was so proud to do what I could to advance science and the quality of life for felines everywhere. Athena was partially anesthetized and that strong little girl just purred all the way through the procedure.

The first step the vet took was to drain off the amniotic fluid that the kitten fetuses were swimming in. The vet went after the first fetus with a pair of forceps. Since the forceps were sterilized, the procedure was perfectly safe. Well, after a little tugging, first out came a back leg with a tiny tail attached to it. Then after a little more tugging and a few more tries, the vet had all four legs and most of the torso. Finally, the vet found the head of the first kitten and pressed down with the forceps. There was a satisfying popping sensation and a little grey trickle of cat brains ran down the forceps. “Got it!” he said to me with some professional satisfaction. I smiled back warmly at the vet who was doing so much for my Athena.

Next up was the second unborn kitten. The vet showed the interns the still beating heart on the sonogram. “No problem,” he said, we’ll just drive a needle into its heart and inject a little something.” One of the interns looked a little nauseated and asked if that was the same as killing a living kitten. “Goodness, no,” the vet reassured, “we’re inducing an intrauterine demise, so nothing gets killed, and we’re doing it with a sterile needle.” I was so moved with the vet’s compassion, that I could sense tears forming in my eyes. A moment later and the heart was no longer beating, so out came the second kitten which was laid on the table next to the pieces of its litter-mate.

The third kitten was a little more trouble. It looked like it could all come out except for the head, but its legs were moving and causing some inconvenience. But this vet knew his stuff. He quickly bored a tiny hole in the back of kitten number three’s head, inserted a vacuum tube, and had those brains evacuated in no time. No more squirming for that kitty! And once the head had collapsed, it was much easier to extract it.

Something seemed to go wrong with kitten number four. It seemed like Athena had gone into an accidentally induced labor and out popped number four all squirming around with its mouth opening and closing looking for nourishment. “No problem,” said the vet again to the small crowd of interns, “in this case we just submerge the kitten in this bucket filled with a toxic solution.” It took about a minute, maybe less, for the little thing to stop squirming, but it finally got still and ended up on the table with the other three. I was amazed. These vets think of everything.

The vet carefully snipped open the head of number four to retrieve its brain for someone who was coming by later to purchase it. I want a Lamborghini,” he joked, and we all had a good laugh together.

I was so proud of Athena, my brave little tabby trooper, who remained calm through the whole operation. She got an extra bowl of Purina that night.

But as beautiful as this experience was, there are some narrow minded bigots out there who want to pass a law protecting kittens. They want to set the clock backward and make “post-natal cat abortions” a crime. Will you contact your congressman and remind him that your cat has a right to choose?

Anthropomorphizing furry animals is always touching and cute. This story is so inspiring that I’d be surprised if it doesn’t create a following of “pro-choice copycats.”

Komissar Blogunov has clearly spent his youthful days preoccupied with“Milo and Otis!”

In fact, it could be said that his fright from seeing the scene with the nursing kittens is what unconsciously triggered this trip to the “Planned Kittenhood” clinic.

After all, Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said because of the “Climate Change” moon shot we shouldn’t have any more kittens since all living creatures will be dead in “12 years” anyway.

May God has mercy on all of us.

Revolutionary Pope

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , on February 14, 2019 by andelino

At the “World Youth Day” Jorge Mario Bergoglio preached a revolutionary “New World” message.

America is led by a “crazy” and “unchristian” leader. That’s the opinion regularly spouted by the far left, and it’s also the “belief” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, better known as “Pope Francis.”

In 2016, Pope Francis called border walls “unchristian,” right after holding mass just on the Mexican side of America’s southern border.

Recently, he returned to the subject, as he returned to the region.

On the pope’s flight to Latin America, a journalist asked the him about a U.S. border wall. The pope said that walling off the entire border “is madness.”  

“It is fear that makes us crazy,” he added.

Then he arrived in Panama for the Catholic “World Youth Day” celebrations January 22 to 27, 2019. Held every two to three years, this is a major “event” on the pope’s calendar.

This year’s event was on the smaller side, probably a sign of how the “sex-abuse” scandal has “damaged” the Catholic Church worldwide.

He used the occasion to exhort them to “build a very different world.”

Popping up in the pope’s speeches were criticisms of “migration” control. He used one homily to speak against the “senseless and irresponsible condemnation of every immigrant as a threat to society.”

People should instead be “builders of bridges,” he said.

He explained that walls are, in fact, so bad that locking people in prisons is wrong. “This attitude spoils everything, because it erects an invisible wall that makes people think that, if we marginalize, separate and isolate others, all our problems will magically be solved,” he told a group of prisoners.

“When a society or community allows this, and does nothing more than complain and backbite, it enters into a vicious circle of division, blame and condemnation.”

Pontiffs behind giant stone walls should not cast stones about Donald Trumps proposed wall is how some people see the Pope’s holy “war of words” with the Donald.

It’s been pointed out that Vatican City — Pope FrancisHQ — has been surrounded by a “massive protective wall” for centuries.

In fact, the wall was first built in 852 A.D. to fend off Muslim attackers. It was expanded to its current size in the 1640s. The wall, in all, measures 2 miles … surrounding 109 acres.

As usual, another recurring theme in the pope’s speeches was “climate change.”

He said in prayer that “Your Son’s way of the cross continues in the plea of our mother earth, profoundly wounded by the pollution of her skies, the barrenness of her fields, the contamination of her waters, trampled underfoot by disregard and a fury of consumption beyond all reason.”

But the pope’s message was more than a list of “condemnations of conservatives, climate change and capitalism.”

He also “exhorted” the young people to “say yes” to changing the world through “social activism.”

God’s vision for the world is not “a promise far off in the future, having nothing to do with the present,” he told young people.

Instead, he told them, God “calls you in your communities and cities to go out and find your grandparents, your elders; to stand up and with them to speak out.”

He spoke to them about a “new world now being born.”

“World Youth Day,” he told them, would turn Panama from a hub of migration into a “hub of hope” for “a more humane world.”

It was this call for “social activism” that led George Neumayr at the “American Spectator” to comment, “His sermons could have been written by Nancy Pelosi.”

“Pope Francis spends much more time talking about this life than the next one,” Neumayr wrote. “He is given to statements such as ‘Another world is possible,’ but he isn’t referring to heaven. He is referring to a revolutionized political order.”

It’s a good observation. The revolutionary pope puts forward a “vision of the gospel” very different from the one in the Bible.

The Apostle Paul wrote that “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” 1 Corinthians 15:19

Paul described our current society as “this present evil world” and exhorted Christians to instead put their hope in “the world to come.”

Jesus Christ told His disciples to “change” their actions. And He was not afraid to “criticize” leaders in the world, especially “religious” ones. But He never called for Christians to “overthrow the Roman Empire and build a new world.”

The revolutionary pope, however, made clear that he doesn’t want his followers to wait for this “new world” to arrive, but to go out and build it in a very “practical” way, now.

In the past, Pope Francis has made clear that he wants to “topple” the global system of free-market capitalism. He has called it “a new tyranny” and “the dung of the devil.”

When the pope insists that nations must open their borders, that Christ demands more spending on climate change, and that capitalism is from the devil,” who is he condemning?

When he “exhorts” Christians to create a new world, whom do they have to “tear down” to make that happen?

It is very clear the pope is preaching “against” the United States of America. And at the “World Youth Day,” just like during his 2016 trip to Mexico, he was doing so on America’s front porch.

If revolutionary Pope Francis is to be taken at his word, he could not possibly wish for the leaders of the capitalist system to thrive and prosper, continuing to inflict its “tyranny” on the world.

If he believes the free market is a “force of destruction” then he would feel not only justified, but “obligated” to use his power to weaken it.

This is a pope who will “hug” dictators, “kiss” the feet of invaders and then “reserve” his harshest “criticism” for the world’s most powerful “democracy” that has led the world in “promoting true freedom.”

This “revolutionary” pope has made clear that he is staunchly “opposed” to some of America’s foundational ideals.

The Bible makes clear that God’s Church is not involved with “politics” of this world. But by Pope Francis’s recent activities and statements, it becomes clear why this should “deeply concern us all.”

Fifty or 60 years ago, no pope would have dared say some of the things this “revolutionary” pope has said. Intervening in America’s political system would have “provoked” a major backlash.

src=”; frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>

Today, it has stirred little more than “amused” talk about Donald Trump versus the Pope.

The pope is a “revolutionary,” and he is stirring public opinion against not just the U.S. president but America’s “core principles.”

He clearly preaches against ”free markets and limited government”, core principles of the U.S. Constitution.

Pope of a “New World”’ Order
Liberation Theology
Pope Francis hates the Catholic faith
Was the pope complicit in Argentina’s “dirty war?”
POPE SAYS “I appeal not to create walls but to build bridges.” FROM ATOP 1,000 YEAR OLD VATICAN WALL

Global Obesity Pandemics

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , on February 3, 2019 by andelino

Three of the “gravest dangers” facing human beings on the planet right now are not separate, disconnected hazards, but “manifestations” of a single common threat never previously “discerned,” scientists claim.

An international team of more than 40 experts has identified what it calls “The Global Syndemic”: “three interconnected health pandemics effectively orchestrated by the shadowy manipulations and influence of vested commercial interests – an entity collectively defined as Big Food.”

Between them, researchers say the linked interplay of “obesity, under-nutrition, and climate change” constitute the most severe known threat to “human and planetary health,” representing the “paramount challenge” for our species and the environment.

Ordinarily, these public “health” dangers are viewed as separate, even “opposing” problems, but the authors of the new report insist otherwise.

“Until now, under-nutrition and obesity have been seen as polar opposites of either too few or too many calories,” says global health scientist Boyd Swinburn from the University of Auckland.

“In reality, they are both driven by the same unhealthy, inequitable food systems, underpinned by the same political economy that is single-focused on economic growth, and ignores the negative health and equity outcomes.”

The “environmental science” of climate change is again often considered at a remove from the “health science” of nutrition and food policy – but in a broader context, the links between the food we eat and the systems that produce it are a growing area of concern for researchers, and with good reason.

“Climate change has the same story of profits and power ignoring the environmental damage caused by current food systems, transportation, urban design and land use,” Swinburn says.

“Joining the three pandemics together as The Global Syndemic allows us to consider common drivers and shared solutions, with the aim of breaking decades of policy inertia.”

The research team – co-chaired by Swinburn and “obesity prevention” researcher William Dietz from George Washington University – began investigating their project three years ago, initially with a sole mandate to explore the drivers of obesity.

It was only when they zoomed out on the seemingly intractable nature of the dilemma that the bigger, over-arching issue – “The Global Syndemic” – came into focus.

When they re-framed the problem, the sad fact of obesity’s ever-growing prevalence in society became easier to understand.

“No country has successfully reversed its epidemic because the systemic and institutional drivers of obesity remain largely unabated,” the authors write in their report.

According to the researchers, this is because even when governments endorse “policy” recommendations to halt and reverse “obesity” rates, their efforts don’t translate into “meaningful or measurable” change because of what they call “policy inertia.”

Partially, that inertia results from inadequate “political leadership” and partially from a lack of “public demand” for change.

But we also can’t deny the strong influence wielded by “Big Food” players, the researchers say, which acts in constant “opposition” to any changes in the status quo.

“The similarities with Big Tobacco lie in the damage they induce and the behaviors of the corporations that profit from them,” says Dietz, who, along with his co-authors, advocates for a global treaty to restrict the “power and influence” of the food industry in government policy-making.

“A Framework Convention on Food Systems would help empower individual nations against vested commercial interests, redirect the vast subsidies that currently benefit unhealthy industries, and provide full transparency.”

In addition to redesigning “economic” incentives, the researchers call for the establishment of a US$1 billion fund to support “social movements” demanding policy action.

But perhaps most importantly, they say it’s time we start “rethinking” how we view these health pandemics: “not as separate things, but as a common, linked problem, ultimately backed by giant companies that don’t have our health interests at heart, nor the planet’s.”

“At current trajectories of economic development, population growth, and food provision, it is estimated that by 2050 overall demand for food and animal-based food will increase by 50 percent and 70 percent, respectively, with further destabilizing effects of deforestation, species extinction, and climate change acceleration,” an editorial commentary on the research, published by The Lancet, explains.

It’s a “provocative” line of argument – and follows on directly from related research recently published in The Lancet, which made the case for just how radically global diets will need to shift in order to sustainably feed the world in about three decades’ time.

Of course, not everybody agrees with the “villainous characterization” of Big Food’s key players; specifically, disagreement comes from their spokespersons.

“Only those with the most extreme of viewpoints could believe that denying our industry a seat at the policy-making table would help to improve diets and nutrition,” Tim Rycroft, the COO of the UK Food and Drink Federation, told CNBC.

Similar positions on the new paper were taken up by the Washington-based International Council of Beverages Associations, and by Coca-Cola.

The researchers say this “resistance” to their conclusions is unnecessary, even if it’s not at all unexpected, given their findings.

“We’re not trying to put the food industry out of business,” one of the authors, food policy researcher Corinna Hawkes from City, University of London, told Bloomberg. “We want it to exist, but we want it to exist in a different way.”

It’s not altogether clear where we go for here, but the sweeping new report offers “no shortage of recommendations and strategies” for governments and decision-makers paying attention.

In any case, it’s clear something has to change – and fast.

“What we’re doing now is unsustainable,” Dietz told media on a conference call to discuss the new findings. “The only thing we can hope is that a sense of urgency will permeate. We’re running out of time.”

Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s predicts the “world will end in 12 years…”

%d bloggers like this: