Obama Ignored US Embassy's Warnings On Climate Change Speech

US_Embassy_Seal[1]Obama’s Climate Fiasco Drives Aussies Closer To India & China

Barack  Obama defied the advice of his embassy in Canberra to deliver a stinging attack on the Abbott government’s climate policies in Brisbane last weekend. The US embassy, under the leadership of ambassador John Berry, advised the President, through his senior staff, not to couch his climate change comments in a way that would be seen as disobliging to the Abbott government, sources have revealed. Historians of the US-Australia relationship are unable to nominate a case of a visiting president making such a hostile speech for the host government. — Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 23 November 2014

The United States embassy in Canberra advised President Barack Obama not to make the provocative, anti-Abbott speech on climate change which he made at the University of Queensland in Brisbane. That the President acted against the advice of his own embassy reveals a deeply divided and in part dysfunctional Obama administration, unable to reconcile its foreign policy objectives and its domestic imperatives. Obama’s self-indulgent folly was in striking contrast to the masterful performances of China’s President Xi Jinping and India’s new Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Xi and Modi have both achieved almost everything they wanted from Asia’s season of summits. Obama has achieved almost nothing. –Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 22 November 2014

Germany is the biggest proponent of the green electricity revolution, but this new plant won’t be powered by the sun, wind or woodchips — it will burn dirty old coal. Built by German energy giant RWE at a cost of €2bn (£1.6bn), the plant is no aberration. This year the company, which owns Npower in Britain, and its rivals have poured billions of euros into a fleet of new coal-fired plants, the most polluting form of power generation. When finished they will be capable of supplying more than 8m households. Last year, German carbon dioxide emissions actually rose 1.2%, partly due to the resurgence of coal. –Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times, 23 November 2014

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible. Koningstein and Fork write: “At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope … Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”– Lewis Page, The Register, 21 November 2014

Thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser of the GWPF for this roundup

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bruce Cobb
November 23, 2014 5:52 am

Obama, a legend in his own mind is busy leaving a “legacy”.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 23, 2014 8:24 am

But a mind with a triple-digit I.Q.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 8:30 am

If you count leading zeros.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 8:32 am

Triple digit IQ? Maybe if it were 088. 092?
He will not even let anybody SEE what classes he took! Anywhere!
Forget hiding the grades, hiding his reports or projects or essays, anything he wrote for the Law Review, anything he may even have edited for the Law review, why he was disbarred from practicing law in Illinois. He won’t even let people read a list of classes he might have taken and when he might have taken those classes!

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 9:04 am

Negative triple digit? Watch a speech without the teleprompter.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 9:27 am

more like room temperature iq – in deg. F

Michael D
Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 11:03 am

triple-digit I.Q. … damning by faint praise…

Bad News Quillan
Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 11:23 am

In binary.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 2:10 pm

Would that be ØØØ ?

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 2:56 pm

An IQ of 100 would be dangerously low for a president of the U.S. An IQ of 115 would put someone int the top 1/ of the populaton in intelligence, an IQ of 120 would put someone in the top 10%, and IQ of 130 would put someone in the top 2%. True, intelligence is’t everything, Hoover was a mining engineer- very intelligent, but a lousy president, but the less intelligent a person is, the less likely they will manage to get elected in the first place, and the more likely they are to be a poor president.
For most presidents, IQ is speculative, but Richard Nixon and John Kennedy were tested in school, and came out at 143 and 119 respectively. GW Bush scored 1206 on his SAT, indicating his IQ is around 125.
The standard error of measurement is about 3 points. That means that a person with 100 !Q will score between 97 and 103 on a test about 68% of the time, and will score between 94 and 106 about 98% of the time.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 3:19 pm

I disagree that Obama is not intelligent. He is not stupid; neither are rats.
Obama has a feral intelligence that is abetted by other personality quirks, such as being narcissistic, lazy, dishonest, callous, selfish, lying, prevaricating, arrogant, dissembling, controlling, blaming others [GW Bush] for his serial failures, mendacious, taking credit for others’ successes, being a pathological liar, etc.
But he is not stupid. Stupid people tend to be more honest, because life has taught them that they aren’t smart enough to get away with fibbing.
Time will tell if Obama’s faults catch up with him, or if he has the last laugh.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 3:24 pm

If President Obama was one of the top two out of 10 blacks admitted to Harvard Law School in the 1987-1988 year, he scored around the 96% percentile, giving him an estimated IQ of around 128, pretty high, but in the bottom 20% of Harvard Law Students that year, That would compare to 143 for Nixon, 119 for Kennedy, and 125 for GW Bush, the only presidents with measured, rather than estimated, results, making President Obama about average in IQ for presidents. If he was one of the other 8 students scoring around the 65th percentile, that would give him an IQ of around 116

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 4:50 pm

100 an’t anything to brag about.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 4:53 pm

…times root minus one. He’s well into imaginary territory.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 23, 2014 6:11 pm

On the IQ scale, 100 denotes average. That is about right for Obama demonstrated abilities. In a job that requires above average IQ, Obama is clearly unqualified.

Tom O
Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 24, 2014 6:44 am

I know a lot of “triple digit” morons. IQ is potential, he’s shown he has none.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 24, 2014 8:49 am

“But a mind with a triple-digit I.Q.”
So just like 50.00000001% of the population then.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 24, 2014 11:23 am

100 is average. I’m not sure he gets there!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 23, 2014 9:07 am

Bruce Cobb,
Obama has a legacy?
¡Sí Señor!

joe crew
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 24, 2014 10:05 am

Where I grew up his “legacy” would be call a trail of sh*t.

Richard G
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 24, 2014 6:47 pm

He has a legacy alright, just not the one he thinks. His legacy is leaving a trail of collateral damage.

November 23, 2014 5:54 am

Obama’s speech was IMO more than a trifle rude – if you are invited to visit someone’s house, you don’t spend your visit criticising the house decor and complaining about the table service.

tom s
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 23, 2014 6:31 am

Obama sucks rocks, plain and simple. What an idiot.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  tom s
November 23, 2014 11:39 pm

We Aussies might have a laid back, somewhat apathetic “She’ll be right mate, what can ya do?” attitude, but we know when someone left the outhouse door open and the stink wafts in..

Kevin Schurig
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 23, 2014 7:13 am

His behavior should be a surprise to no one. He is a small, petty, vindictive little troll of a man who cannot understand why everyone doesn’t bow to his “intelligence.” He is the very definition of a “socialist.”

Doug Proctor
Reply to  Kevin Schurig
November 23, 2014 11:37 am

He behaves as a Roman emperor: there is a Senate, yes, but the empire does as the emperor says. What counts in such a political system is not the vote (even of the aristocracy), but what the emperor wants.
The devolution of American democracy back to the British monarchy prior to the Magna Carta is awesome to behold.

Reply to  Kevin Schurig
November 23, 2014 1:25 pm

Doug Proctor
Next year is the 800th anniversary of the ‘Great Charter’ – the Magna Carta.

Reply to  Kevin Schurig
November 23, 2014 4:31 pm

To my mind, Obama typifies the left/green idealogue. They are unalloyed cowards who gain power by selling the mirage of ” achievable social justice” . They are not leaders, they are pushers with an inflated sense of their abilities and a barely disguised hatred for the little people who elected them.
As a sixty-something Australian who has an abiding admiration for the American heartland people’s common sense and decency (which I also believe we share), I wish you well in getting past this aberration in the White House.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 23, 2014 7:27 am

Eric…Who were the nuts that invited him?

pauline young
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 23, 2014 4:36 pm

He was invited as part of the G20 which Australia hosted. The hosts went to great trouble to accommodate his wish to speak to an audience of young people, hence the address at the University of Queensland. This is the same institution that employs Cook et al recently sent a legal letter to one of the bloggers on this site, is running a MOOC starting next year on climate change deniers… that means us not the warmists and is my alma mater. I am almost incensed and have declined to give them any more donations. They have been notifed why by the PR person they flew down to Tasmania where I now live, to find out why generous donors such as myself no longer give donations.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 23, 2014 7:38 am

And when he visits Jerusalem…

Reply to  Harold
November 23, 2014 4:56 pm

…there will be protests by both sides. Not over his visit, but the porcine aerobatics that will accompany it.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 23, 2014 9:21 am

A mother in law (or for that matter your own mother) would. Perhaps he feels that he should act like one.
Never goes down well though.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 23, 2014 10:32 am

From Obama’s perspective, he has been overly patient with the world.
At his core he is a true Red Diaper baby who long ago convinced himself that the best way to advance his left-wing beliefs was by adopting a “centrist” persona. He can’t understand why he is still criticized for being too far left, when by his lights he has already been far too accommodating.
With no more elections to go I think he’s decided, what the hell, the “centrist” persona is not working, I’ll just be myself.
Get ready for an unending string of militant, peevish, far-left policies.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 23, 2014 10:40 am

Not stupid. Obama has spent his Presidency going out of his way to stab our allies in the back. That Australia might change its orientation away from the US is a feature, not a bug, in his mind.

Reply to  Rhoda R
November 23, 2014 5:02 pm

Exactly. He is the malignant troll we were warned about. Many of us ignored the warning, caught up in leftist exuberance and an overdose of retro kumbaya. But by trying to injure Australian leadership, he’s probably damaged their opponents a lot worse.

November 23, 2014 5:56 am

Since when does this president take advice from anyone except the party apparatchik?

Dudley Horscroft
November 23, 2014 5:57 am

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop made a very appropriate response to President Obama’s speech, saying that he had been badly briefed.
This is diplomatic language for “You haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about.” Also “Get your facts straight, what you said is a load of BS.”
But it turns out that he was properly briefed – he just talked (orated?) with no idea of the difference between truth and fiction, letting his mouth run away, disconnected from brain.
Surely the United States of America can do better than this?

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 23, 2014 6:03 am

It couldn’t do worse.

Reply to  cnxtim
November 23, 2014 9:30 am

never say never – or couldn’t – they are poised for promoting worse in ’16

Ray Kuntz
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 23, 2014 6:25 am

Our apologies, many of us in the US hope he is a one time aberration.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Ray Kuntz
November 23, 2014 9:19 am

And Hilary ? the second ?

Reply to  Ray Kuntz
November 23, 2014 10:17 am

Hillary is unelectable. Too many moderates are still mad at her for immolating American citizens (including women and children) inside their own home.

Reply to  Ray Kuntz
November 23, 2014 1:46 pm

Hillary is only unelectable if the Republicans manage to find an electable candidate to run against her. Obama only won his last election because the Republicans managed to find a candidate Americans liked even less.
If they offer up another Romney, Hillary will win by default.

Reply to  Ray Kuntz
November 23, 2014 1:53 pm

Romney is no McCain; far from it. McCain is a Democrat chameleon, posing as a Republican.
I liked Romney. He is honest, a straight shooter, he adopted lots of kids from different ethnic backgrounds before it was a big deal, he saved dozens of companies from going bankrupt, and thousands of jobs — he is “The Fixer”.
Right now, America needs fixing.

Reply to  Ray Kuntz
November 23, 2014 2:07 pm

Romney lost by estranging voters. First he demonized China and consequently lost the Asian American votes, then he started talking about “self-deportation” which seemed to code for “if your brown, we’re going to make things so bad for you that you’ll want to leave” and lost the Latino population. Before those two strategic blunders, he had Obama beat.

Reply to  Ray Kuntz
November 23, 2014 4:51 pm

Romney lost for a number of reasons, among them:
• The entire mainstream media was behind Obama. They incessantly demonized Romney, while making certain that uncomfortable questions were never asked of/about Obama. The public still knows very little about that enigmatic and shadowy individual. The WSJ could not even find one Harvard or Columbia classmate who remembers him! And here is TIME magazine’s photo collection of Obama’s “college years”. Some collection, eh? And what ‘college’? Where is it? There is no indication of any college in those pictures. It still seems that Americans were sold a pig in a poke.
• Massive voter fraud, which rose to unprecedented levels in that election. There are numerous eyewitness reports of “Barak Obama” appearing on the voting machines as the one they had voted for, after the voter had clicked on “Mitt Romney”. And TV stations that announced the winner, not hours before the polls closed, but weeks before. And unprecedented illegal voting by citizens of foreign countries. And some precincts reporting more than 100% of votes for Obama, vs zero for Romney. And so on.
• The hurricane that made the difference: even Chris Matthews admits that Hurricane Sandy was decisive. The hurricane hit two days befor the election, allowing Obama to circumvent the equal time rule, and appear on television non-stop through election day. Romney was denied that publicity, getting no equal time. Exit polling showed that fully one-half the voting public made up their minds on election day! Amazing but true. And the extra $1 billion that the Dems had to spend supporting Obama was crucial.
So you see, it wasn’t really Romney, as it was with McCain. With all the advantages of incumbency, and the bully pulpit, and free advertising, and piles of money, and free Obamaphones, etc., Obama only won by a very small margin.
If the election were held today, do you still think Obama would win?

Flyover Bob
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 23, 2014 7:16 am

A sizable number of actually tried, twice!

George Daddis
Reply to  Flyover Bob
November 23, 2014 7:57 am

I’m beginning to fear Gruber was right! There is a wise old saying (with unverified attribution) that “once citizens realize they can vote themselves a raise, democracy is doomed.” Lord Woodhouselee in 1813 opined the average life of a democracy to be 200 years.

Reply to  Flyover Bob
November 23, 2014 9:00 am

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

I think we’re in the second from last stage…

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Flyover Bob
November 23, 2014 9:18 am

dbsteatly, I wish it was apathy, but no, he was voted in twice and the majority still buy the Kool Aid. Here in Canada, British Columbia (our California) was the first to legislate a carbon tax and now Ontario and Quebec have signed a deal to follow the leader with carbon taxes. The only safe place to live up here is Alberta and Saskatchewan where fossil fuel is the economy (and it’s cowboy country).

Phil R
Reply to  Flyover Bob
November 24, 2014 7:18 am

George Daddis

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 23, 2014 7:43 am

Unfortunately the inmates have taken over the asylum.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 23, 2014 8:29 am

I’m not sure he can do better. What puzzles me is in face of all the legitimate science and advice available, he still chooses to head vocally in the direction of CAGW and the economic havoc it brings. This means that with all the input from various advisors, he still chooses a course of action he thinks is politically acceptable and “hang” the consequences.
Now, the really scary thing is his apparent grasp and understanding of foreign affairs which requires some level of complex thinking. Not sure if he can nor willing to do that either. If he can’t get this “simple” climate thing correct which if you follow the science, what will be the lasting consequences of botched international diplomacy implemented by John Kerry?
Leadership requires that when standing on your soapbox, you see clearly over the group you are speaking to, announce decisions of courage, intelligence and not always follow current political correctness.

Reply to  BillyV
November 24, 2014 6:13 am

Obama is a Government of One.
He doesn’t listen to his generals–he goes out of his way to ignore their advice and now has replaced those that disagreed with him.
He goes against the House by having Harry Reid, leader of the senate, ignore more than 380 bills the Republicans has passed and sent to the senate.
He ignores the electorate that gave him and his party a stinging defeat just three weeks ago in the mid-terms.
He ignores polls that are contrary to his Left-wing ideology–an ideology that is consistent to Frank Marshall Davis, the very “Frank” mentioned only by first name in “his” books (actually, most believe they were authored by Bill Ayers). Frank Marshall Davis was a staunch communist and the topic of the recent book “The Communist”.
Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) will be known as the worst president in US history.
That’s the legacy the Left will try to spin (Gruberize), but the electorate knows better.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 23, 2014 1:27 pm

The Muslim Brotherhood got what they paid for- a tame figurehead.<:o)

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 23, 2014 3:05 pm

Dudley, that is my enduring perception also, Obama sought to promote issues that are commonly sung without any scientific merit, but promoted by a vocal green minority in Australia and he knew that they would applaud and not look any further. It was a prop cleverly used to enable him to sell a very bad China US Obama deal and it worked in that the biased to left wing media in Australia sung its praises, meaning that none really looked at the disaster the deal revealed on closer inspection.
A real Gruber validation that some will lap up swill if the concept but not the detail is promoted. The very heart of propaganda and of course promoting Obama’s own perception of his ability to achieve the impossible and all that followed in his inspiration of his devastated democratic party as they prepare for upcoming propaganda war of words in the President versus hostile Congress, where truth and integrity will be the first casualty and, democracy and democratic government by and for the people, will be severely tested.
My observation is you have a President hell bent on dividing the American people, in the hope that he can eventually rescue his place in history by then fixing the resulting chaos, by a call to unity of purpose, by the eloquence of his oratory skill, thus cementing his place in history, but at what cost?

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 23, 2014 4:33 pm

Spot on Dudley. Julie Bishop is a doer and would make an admirable PM.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 23, 2014 7:14 pm

I tried. Twice.

November 23, 2014 5:59 am

Nah. Obama didn’t ignore the advice; he never listened and so never heard the advice. After all, Obama has already announced that he is smarter and more knowledgeable than any of his staff.
That and he keeps his head in a very dark place.

Pamela Gray
November 23, 2014 6:08 am

The left will swing even further. Why? They have already lost the war, meaning there is nothing else that can be done to them so they might as well party to the extreme. It is going to get clownish before they pack up their tent and leave altogether.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 23, 2014 7:39 am

Remember what he told Medvedev.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 23, 2014 7:54 am

The Unabomber was part of the Extreme. Picture several thousand of him, scattered across the globe…

Evan Jones
Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 23, 2014 8:48 am

I have waited such a long time for my liberals to come home to me. Perhaps this is the end of the beginning; perhaps some of them will. But it can’t go on like this.
We can’t avoid all societal conundrums. There is no fixed place. We have to accept that we live on a slippery slope — and acquire the intellectual discipline to dig in our spike at just the right point, always with an eye out for necessary change in any direction.

November 23, 2014 6:14 am

Obama is achieving exactly what he & his Bankster/Leftist cronies desire : the destruction of free-enterprise America, & the imposition of a Totalitarian police state.
Do you see any substantial differences between Bush & Obomber?

November 23, 2014 6:39 am

To jdsanejd: Yes, Bush actually seemed to love America and the military loved him.

Evan Jones
Reply to  mscontrarianscientist
November 23, 2014 8:42 am

I loved him. He is one of my favorite presidents — ever — and I had some reservations at first. Dubya is worth ten of his father, who wasn’t bad, himself.
I know this is not a widespread belief, but I am not shooting in the dark. I have an M.A in U.S. History (aka Occupy Wall Street) and, until the surfacestations project came along, I was immersed in political and military history and current events. I think history will vindicate dubya much the same as it (mostly) did Truman.

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 23, 2014 8:57 am

I agree. GWB was a class act, and he looks better as time goes by. I don’t agree with some things he did, like prescription Medicare payments, the new Homeland Security Cabinet position, and a few others. But over all, he was a good guy and a very good President.
When he left office, Bush was asked about Obama. He could have unloaded on him, and it would have been on every news channel. Instead, he answered,
“He deserves my silence.”
Pretty classy answer. And he has kept his word. Contrast that with the despicable Obama, who still blames Bush every chance he gets.

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 23, 2014 5:13 pm

Truman disbanded the OSS without a replacement agency in place. He also pulled US troops from Korea after WWII despite being warned that North Korea would certainly attack at the first opportunity.

Joe Born
Reply to  Evan Jones
November 24, 2014 2:56 pm

What dbstealey said.

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 28, 2014 12:22 pm

Have you read Cobra Two? Expecting to be out of Iraq by August of 2003 doesn’t strike me as towering statesmanship.

November 23, 2014 6:40 am

“Historians of the US-Australia relationship are unable to nominate a case of a visiting president making such a hostile speech for the host government.”
There’s your ‘change’ folks…
He seems to have no concept of the legacy he will have left.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 23, 2014 9:01 am

The trouble is that snuggling up with your rivals has a way of ticking off your allies. I’d far rather see the sort of criticism leveled at America under dubya than what I’m seeing now.
What we are seeing is an attempt at leadership in the wrong direction. Fortunately (very fortunately), what is lacking is the “leadership” part. America is too big for him. And he who lives by the executive order, dies by the executive order. The job is too big for him. America is too big for him. He can’t handle America. Sheol! We’re s’posed to be scared ‘o that? Let him flounder and disappear.
I worry far more about Hillary. Her policies are surely not quite as bad as the current occupant’s, but she appears to have leadership ability to push them through, and that makes me far more concerned.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 23, 2014 9:11 am

I disagree. Obama hates everything America stands for, and will be glad to see that he’s pushing more allies away. His legacy will be exactly what he wanted: America a fading power on the verge of civil war.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  MarkG
November 23, 2014 9:45 am

I agree with MarkG. Sometimes we must take the bull by the tail and face the situation.

Reply to  MarkG
November 23, 2014 5:16 pm

Just wait till his handlers capitalize on the situation. That’s when the fireworks will start. The only way to prevent it will be impeachment as soon as possible.

Old Bloke
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 23, 2014 4:21 pm

On Andrew Bolt’s “Herald Sun” blog today – “Attention America: your windbag president is pushing Australia China’s way”

November 23, 2014 6:55 am

Bishop should give a speech on border protection and how AUS stamped out the people smuggling trade that lured so many to their deaths. And do it in a way that really hammers the Kenyan’s policies.

November 23, 2014 6:58 am

Re: jdseanjd, The difference I see is that W. sounds less intelligent than he is and Obama sounds more intelligent than he really is. One is a ‘neocon’ and the other is a ‘liberal interventionist’ so their agendas are largely unified in my view.
Time will tell whether they leave similar legacies of diverting attention to sideshows, while the US economy rolls backwards off of a cliff.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 23, 2014 7:18 am

…and I think I might have just now confused intelligence with wisdom…

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 23, 2014 5:20 pm

Wisdom is intelligence that didn’t blunder.

November 23, 2014 7:18 am

Obama really disappoints with his ineffective foreign policy. I realize this may be contrary to the conventional wisdom around here, but I found W. Bush to have a really bad foreign policy. I thought it couldn’t get much worse. But Obama is giving him a run for the money. This doesn’t say much about USA foreign policy in general, because Clinton was also kinda dumb in this area, what we may have is 24 whole years of failed USA foreign policy. That’s hard to overcome.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 23, 2014 8:32 am

So why don’t you have a try at foreign policy since you know better?

Reply to  climatologist/meteorologist
November 23, 2014 8:49 am

It is this line of reasoning that has given us CAGW alarmism in the first place.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 23, 2014 9:14 am

As an old-school liberal, I loved his foreign policy. He established a working democracy (with 25% of parliament made up of women) in the heart of the fertile crescent under the worst conditions imaginable. It is still clinging to existence in spite of our current occupant’s continual proactive unraveling of our position.
Truman was even more unpopular than dubya when he left office (Korea, Mac., etc.). Yet he is regarded as almost godlike today (a minor god), because Korea endured in later years. Similarly, if Iraq manages to maintain itself, dubya will be remembered well.
Unlike Obama, I considered the Iraq war as far more morally justified than Afghanistan. Saddam’s Iraq was a slo-mo genocide-in-progress, like Tony Blair always said, while Afghanistan’s Taliban was merely another obnoxious neo-anachronism.

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 23, 2014 4:59 pm

I would reply, but I have no idea what you talking about, and neither do you, unless you are just typing words to hear the sound of the keys.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Evan Jones
November 23, 2014 7:24 pm

I’ll explain, then: I liked dubya’s foreign policy. I do not think it was “really bad”.

November 23, 2014 7:20 am

Obama displayed the same kind of rude, boorish behavior when he invited Benjamin Netanyahu to the US during his first term. He doesn’t seem to feel that he is a representative of the people of the US in much of anything he does in either domestic or foreign affairs. Instead he behaves as if he is some kind of monarch of the world, and that everyone else needs to ascede to his demands.
The end of his second term can’t come fast enough. Even Nixon and Carter were better presidents and that isn’t saying much. If nothing else, his presidency may lead to a re-examination of what the role of chief executive of a constitutional republic should be. Perhaps the electorate will insist that the powers of future presidents be kept in check according to constitutional mandates.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Jbird
November 23, 2014 9:17 am

He also displayed some embarrassingly poor taste in gifts, if one will recall.

Reply to  Jbird
November 23, 2014 10:20 am

Hey, go easy on Nixon and Carter, they gave us the EPA and DOE

Reply to  Jbird
November 23, 2014 3:33 pm

Nixon was excellent in foreign policy and more than qualified for the presidency, He did have a disagreeable public persona and turned a minor problem into a major one with Whitewater.
Carter was highly intelligent and perhaps a decent person but totally incompetent.
My vote goes to Reagan. Average intelligence but smart enough to know the country, unlike BHO. Also smart enough to hire good advisers and listen to them.

Reply to  Expat
November 23, 2014 5:01 pm

Reagan was far more than average,intelligence, but he talked in such a way that average people could understand.

michael hart
November 23, 2014 7:32 am

“We now know that to be a false hope … Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”

I recommend a firm grounding in an engineering discipline and/or the physical, chemical and biological sciences. It shouldn’t really matter which one if they are well taught. I’m not referring to the Google engineers who, in the end, did the right thing. I’m referring to the general wishful thinking that seems to pervade so many environmentalist solutions to the world’s prolems. Angst coupled with ignorance and a desire to control the lives & choices of others is an unholy cocktail.

November 23, 2014 7:43 am

The teleprompter should be placed under arrest.

Reply to  Gamecock
November 23, 2014 7:58 am

November 23, 2014 7:45 am

This ‘ramping up’ of tone and demeanor reminds me of the cult preacher who has the kool-aid poured and ready, but few are drinking. In the background are sounds of the authorities surrounding the compound, so time is running out to accomplish the objective. He must now exude an ultimate authority.

M Seward
November 23, 2014 7:46 am

What was most galling was that he made the speech to a bunch of students at U Qld including some high school kids. He did not even have the kohonas to try it on with an adult audience, That he made the speech during the G20 conference our Government was hosting was also to try and turn the whole thing into another ego trip for himself.
That said we will cop it sweet as we say. You poor bloody Yanks have to put up with this airhead trying to cut your CO2 emissions to ‘honour’ his prissy, moronic ‘agreement’ with the Chinese. I wish Obama would just cut his own CO2 emissions and save the rest of us the ensuing grief.

Bennett In Vermont
Reply to  M Seward
November 23, 2014 7:57 am

“I wish Obama would just cut his own CO2 emissions and save the rest of us the ensuing grief.”

Reply to  Bennett In Vermont
November 23, 2014 3:32 pm


Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
November 23, 2014 7:51 am

I think Obama has tossed his hat into the ring for nomination to ruler of the world via the UN. That’s fine with me so long as he moves elsewhere, Anartica would be a nice venue..

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
November 23, 2014 10:11 am

Mike…Haven’t the penguins suffered enough?

David A
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 23, 2014 10:18 am

He is the new Emperor penguin.

Reply to  Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
November 24, 2014 12:03 am

Prefer a different planet!

November 23, 2014 7:57 am

How dare any question the pronouncements of the Lord Emperor Obama!!!

November 23, 2014 8:14 am

In this response I’m trying to direct my political opinions back toward the issue of climate change, at least to a degree, especially with my conclusions at the end. What this climate issue really underscores (IMHO) is the shift in the American population (over just a couple of generations) which voted in a dangerous ideology that Obama represents and egests, and the change to European-style socialism and even Soviet-style ideology that has been continually propounded by the progressive leftists in the media and academia. In effect, voters have been and are being brainwashed to accept the small “gimmes” that government hands out in exchange for their liberty and the opportunity for the “pursuit of happiness.” This “gimme” mentality is actually a negative feedback cycle, so, absent a collapse of the country’s systems, a further slide along these lines is simply inevitable, especially as the demographics of the USA continue to change (with 5 million more gimmes coming soon?). The fraud and sham of CAGW/CC is a prime tool for these Progressives, because, as many on this site already know, it allows for stringent control of industry and the furtherance of big and perhaps even world government. It really has taken only a relatively few generations to inculcate a sea change in ideology in the U.S.: from the rights of the individual to choose, to the need for government to choose for the “common good,” which is whatever they choose and decide, which of course is not what they must abide. We stupid voters (many of us anyway) have allowed this to happen to ourselves. While it’s hard to blame the Greatest Generation, it appears to me that, in their desire to give their children a better life than they had in the Depression and WWII, they spoiled the succeeding generation to an extent, who accelerated the trend with their children. My belief is that this kind of ideology has naturally and preferentially bled over into much of academia, even atmospheric and climate science. And, while I’m a believer in cycles, it’s hard for me to see a cycle back to the principles of previous generations.
So, here’s the climax to my response: I do, however, see a cycle back to cooler global temperatures, based on at least 3 interrelated cycles: the about-70 year cycle (66?), the slightly longer about-200 year cycle, and the even longer about-600 year cycle. I think all of these are governed to a large degree by the about-11 year sunspot cycle…and groups of 3 sunspot cycles are responsible for the above-mentioned cycles. Perhaps future solar researchers can figure out why there are groups of 3, (3 11s, 3 66s, 3 198s), but perhaps it relates to the change in polarity of the sunspot cycles every 11 or so years…one cycle is dominated by positive polarities, and the next by negative (the 22 year Hale Cycle). Could this flip-flop of polarity possibly impact the way the Earth receives energy from the Sun, resulting in temperature differences, especially for the shorter 70 year cycle? I think these cycles can add to or subtract from the total effect, leaving us with our current high maximum (e.g. all cycles are superimposed right now). Specifically, the 70 year cycle has just passed into the next 35 year cooling cycle, as has the 200 year cycle, but the longer period 600 year cycle (which is probably the most dominant) is still around its peak for another few decades. This superposition of all 3 cycles has caused the noticeable global warming of the 20th century, particularly the last third, but, since they have all peaked, this is why we have plateaued or “paused” for the last almost 20 years. So, as time progresses, we should be on the downhill trend, especially as we move to the last 30 years of the 21st century. Well, that’s what I’ve come up with over the last 30 years of looking at temperature and storm variability (especially in the northeastern U.S., but also globally) from the available climate information of the past 2000 years. I’ve discussed these ideas with a State Climatologist that I knew, but he didn’t like my ideas and subsequently (past 10 years) preferred the CAGW explanation from the media interviews I’ve seen from him. The difference between Academia versus real-world operations, gimme-ism versus individual liberties, has never been more pronounced, and we see who is currently winning. I believe it will take a long time…perhaps 25 or 50 years…before this CAGW/CC error is completely corrected (climate cycling naturally combined with generational changes). But how long after that will it take to reverse the changes, taxes, and negative effects that already have been implemented…and are yet to be imposed? Money and “investments” already spent and to be spent will never be recouped, and precious resources will have been mostly wasted, where, otherwise spent intelligently, they might have done real good for the world.

Reply to  4caster
November 23, 2014 10:43 am

+1 and may I add…..”United States Foreign Policy” is an oxymoron.

November 23, 2014 8:34 am

“Obama’s self-indulgent folly was in striking contrast to the masterful performances of China’s President Xi Jinping and India’s new Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Xi and Modi have both achieved almost everything they wanted from Asia’s season of summits. Obama has achieved almost nothing.” –Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 22 November 2014

The easy manipulation of the embarrassingly gullible Obama by more strategically far-sighted countries nears its end game. Australia will do better when staying aligned with the more far-sighted governments.
The US has always recovered from such gullible leaders in the past, so I remain very optimistic.
American Yankee,

Steve Lohr
Reply to  John Whitman
November 23, 2014 9:37 am

John: “The US has always recovered from such gullible leaders in the past, so I remain very optimistic.”
I too remain optimistic. The election of Obama is a very complex political thing that I believe is related to the psychology of the US voter. We obsessively believe in doing the right thing and sometimes second guess ourselves, and therefore appear gullible as an electorate. The issue of race weighs heavy on the American mind and severely confounded the recent presidential cycle. That is gone now, just like the election of a Catholic when J. K. won the presidency is gone. That’s progress.
Bush was a disappointment for many and that may have propelled the “change” we are seeing too. At the outset, not everyone studies the nature of the politics of the man and the subsequent administration that will result, but they do study the results. Obama’s course was easily predictable and will continue right up to his last day in office. Most people focused on the perceived good that Obama’s election and reelection would do. They gave the guy a chance to do the right things. By proving that he is in the same league with Richard Daley clears the air of a lot of misperceptions.
My guess is the last days will get ugly when he sees the power slipping away. Climate related issues may be the most damning and damaging of final acts. So be it. Those last days will “fix” the potential for another political messiah for a long time into the future, and drop the climate hysterics completely out of the picture. Every presidential legacy lives on for the study of mankind, and so too will Obama’s. The rhetorical selling of a better way has great attraction for Americans. We get burned sometimes but our system is still working, although it may frighten many people, and will continue to work.
Not many people will understand the full meaning of this but you have to live in the context of the American politics to fully grasp what is very actively happening as we head toward the next presidential election. Ten years ago, if you had told me the state of West Virginia would go Republican, I would have said it isn’t possible. That state has been owned by the Democrat Party almost forever. That is no more, and it is because of the tyranny of the D party. The people are reacting. We may never get it exactly right, but we will keep trying because that is the brilliant way it was designed.

Reply to  Steve Lohr
November 23, 2014 10:25 am

“Climate related issues may be the most damning and damaging of final acts. So be it. Those last days will “fix” the potential for another political messiah for a long time into the future, and drop the climate hysterics completely out of the picture. ”
Well said. By thrashing around as he does in the climate issue, Obama may well have erased CAGW from US politics, no matter where the next president will come from.

Reply to  Steve Lohr
November 23, 2014 10:40 am

Don’t forget Maryland is getting a new governor.

DD More
Reply to  Steve Lohr
November 23, 2014 12:07 pm

Steve, you & many others have been immersed in PC thoughts from its start in the 1930’s. See the well researched players and directions from the “Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally”.
In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism

Reply to  Steve Lohr
November 28, 2014 12:28 pm

Have a look at The New Leviathan by Horowitz and Laksin. That should dampen your optimism somewhat. Obama is just one spoke in the wheel that’s overrunning the country.

November 23, 2014 8:35 am

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Our petulant man-child president strikes again, this time insulting a close ally in order to push his climate-change claptrap. The only word to describe such a performance is “juvenile.”

Reply to  Phineas Fahrquar
November 23, 2014 11:01 am

Look who he helps and look who he pisses on.
That is not now and has never been American.
We help our allies…well we used to before.
Heaven (and my awaiting virgins) help us is another Obama, Kennedy, Clinton or Bush or gets to POTUS. That’s the fast track to a defunct country.
The US needs a freedom loving candidate with swagger.
Swagger is what wins elections.
Pussy-footing around like Mitt will never win.
Clinton has spent her entire adult life lying in front of political crowds.
Who we got that can beat her.
Not Ted
Not Rick
Not Jeb
The party would support a Marco but would throw any TEA party candidate under the bus, again.
Who have we got?
I like Sarah but I hate her squeaky voice and she would never get a bye from the media. They’d eat her alive, again.
I supported this time but if the congress screws this up or the party runs a RINO…
They better put up someone good or I’ll vote Libertarian and just let Hillary crash the system completely.
Then we can fight our way back, the right way.

November 23, 2014 8:47 am

Mr. Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine, nuff said ?

Reply to  u.k.(us)
November 23, 2014 9:03 am

I’ve heard it said that Illinois would be stable and solvent if Cook County was in Wisconsin.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 23, 2014 9:30 am

A machine, historically, bears certain costs. It feeds on itself and others. But it is, in a sense, a Godfather: there are obligations in either direction. In the case of Chicago, it would seem that the costs-benefit equation is no longer favorable.
History has a way with dealing with that, too, but we neo-modern creatures are impatient after five years when enacting changes that used to take generations, or even centuries. The machine may seize up. Or it may die of attrition. But the forces of history are now against it; it’s just a matter of time.

R. Shearer
November 23, 2014 9:37 am

At least he reduced the U.S. debt from about $10 trillion to $18 trillion in only 6 years.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  R. Shearer
November 23, 2014 10:23 am

Extrapolating your calculations, we should have Zero debt by June of 2000.
And the polar bears will go extinct in 1942 (approximately).

November 23, 2014 9:39 am

What a wondeful opportunity! I’ve been waiting for a thread like this:
[got lots more…]

Reply to  dbstealey
November 23, 2014 11:02 am

I hate politics, but yes it was wondeful .
Couldn’t resist 🙂

gary turner
November 23, 2014 9:59 am

November 23, 2014 at 8:32 am
See http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp for some facts rather than innuendo. That’s not to say Obama isn’t a Chicago machine ward heeler in an empty suit.

Rhoda R
Reply to  gary turner
November 23, 2014 10:55 am

How anyone could believe that Obama could play politics in the Chicago sewer and not end up stinking was beyond me.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Rhoda R
November 23, 2014 12:34 pm

We had a convention in Chicago a couple years ago, and I checked the homicide map. There weren’t any murders within 2.1 miles of our convention site.

November 23, 2014 10:54 am

Last week Australia and China signed a free trade agreement. The agreement included the elimination of a 6 percent Chinese import tariff on power-station coal over two years. The 3 percent tariff on steel-making coal will be removed on the first day.
While Obama criticizes the Australian administration and a signed a carbon emissions agreement where we cut first, and China cuts much later, China the world’s biggest coal consumer will help miners in Australia struggling amid a global glut.

November 23, 2014 11:29 am

Have no fear, the bond between Australia and America will easily survive the ObamaNation. pg

Green Sand
November 23, 2014 12:15 pm

Aussie Aussie Aussie,
Oi Oi Oi!
Aussie Aussie Aussie,
Oi Oi Oi!
Aussie Aussie Aussie,
Oi Oi Oi!

Gunga Din
November 23, 2014 12:31 pm

Germany is the biggest proponent of the green electricity revolution, but this new plant won’t be powered by the sun, wind or woodchips — it will burn dirty old coal.

Lots can be said here. Some has already been said. So this is just a reminder.
As far as I know, there are 3 sources of clean coal. One is in a part of Africa that would be, at present, impractical to develop. Another is in Indonesia (maybe Malaysia?) that is or was controlled by the Lippo group. The last known is in Utah. Clinton declared that area a National Something-or-other that put mining it off base.
The Lippo group were big supporters of Clinton.
Now Hillery want’s to be President.
The war on “Carbon” has never been about the environment.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 25, 2014 2:04 pm

PS What I meant by “clean coal” is, if I remember correctly, was very, very low sulfur coal.

Bill H
November 23, 2014 1:37 pm

Obama was simply appeasing his One World Government Masters.. IF we in the US follow and throw out the green liars as the Australians did the OWG crowd would get mighty nervous about their life expectancy. We need to throw out the like of Obama fast and get some sanity and keep our nation from the socialist likes of his kind. The last Election was a resounding NO to the enviro wackos but Obama has an agenda. It was never about Climate and it has always been about control,,,

November 23, 2014 2:08 pm

Obama the orphan? Or is it America the orphan?
In any case, Obama desperately needs to increase private capital capture and redistribution to compensate for his liberal fiscal policies. Forcing inefficient and costly methods of energy production is critical to realizing his dream of changing the world order. Notably, assassination of leaders in effectively neutral nations and replacement or isolation of leaders in allied or friendly nations.

November 23, 2014 2:37 pm

Reblogged this on SiriusCoffee and commented:
You want a carbon neutral energy source for the future? Nuclear is the only viable one.

November 23, 2014 3:17 pm

The stinging rebuke came from the American Nation who delivered a stinging attack on the President’s party in both houses. Does he not learn from this?
Mr Abbott on the other hand took climate change to an election and won a majority. Does he not know this?

Reply to  Firey
November 23, 2014 3:51 pm

Firey you are ABSOLUTELY correct. Obviously the American Embassy knew better. When Al Gore came to Australia a few months ago he sided with Clive Palmer of the PUP party, and Clive got a bit of publicity out of it, saying he would vote for an ETS scheme. He did not of course. I would say that your President was hoping to push green energy to compete with the Chinese manufacturing. With the Russian battleships patrolling the international waters, a typical Russian sabre rattling affair, yet Putin said he got a surprisingly warm welcome in Australia, another macho personality, who doesn’t like to be out shone by the Americans. But I think that Obama could see that Australia was not going to bend over backwards to side with him, and why should we. Sorry folks, we know this climate change is a load of cod’s whollop, as Maurice Newman took great claims to explain this before the G20. If Obama wants to still believe it, well considering some of the arch climate change sooth sayers are American, like Mann, and Gore, his one way of supporting them was to rubbish our PM’s opinion and action on this issue. Didn’t work Barry. If they can con you well it says a lot about your dealings with foreign governments. So back to the table eh?

November 23, 2014 3:30 pm

As an American I am sorry about our Obamanation of a President and his destructive politics, policies and science.

November 23, 2014 4:35 pm

As Mark Steyn has noted, Obama has form for alienating allies and sucking up to enemies. This is just another example.
The relationship with Australia is strong enough to survive his Presidency. But please, please don’t elect another one like him! Even the strongest friendships have limits.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
November 23, 2014 5:21 pm

Under authority given Congress by the 25th Amendment to the Constitution (ref. Wikipedia.org) Congress can remove Mr. Obama from the Office of President.
Congress can make a determination that Mr. Obama is incompetent and mentally unable to serve the Office of President, then order his forceful removal from Office and detainment by a medical care facility as his willful actions are an endangerment to himself, the citizens of the United States of America and the National Security and wellbeing of the United States of America.

November 23, 2014 6:33 pm

I can understand his thinking. Australian Governments (of all political flavours) have sucked up to the US since Curtin. They seem to think Canberra is a branch office of Washington. (Regardless of whether the Australian people agree with this attitude or not.) So why should he expect them to do anything other than take it?
Is Abbott going to cancel the order for F35s and buy Russian, Swedish, or French planes that will be cheaper and actually work? Refuse to support the US in its wars? Close Pine Gap? Close the Darwin base? Hardly likely.
No-one outside Australia will notice popeyed Julie Bishop complaining. Obama can shrug that off.

Reply to  RoHa
November 24, 2014 12:41 am

Abbott has ruled out sending any more troops to Iraq … he has only sent troops at the request of Iraq to assist it in defending its nation. He will not send troops or support on the request of Obama.
“Popeyed” Julia made our displeasure known in her address to the UN security council last week … and received an ovation from the delegates.
Abbott has signaled that Australia will join the Chinese/Asian infrastructure bank contrary to the advice of the twerp Obama.
Contrast the swooning ju-LIAR Gillard, ex-PM, in the presence of her socialist idol, Obama … video needed an “R” rating!

Brock Way
November 23, 2014 7:05 pm

What is wrong with people in OZ not wanting to give their money away to kingdoms and dictatorships a world away? It’ll be fun, and I am sure that the money will be spent on the people just like it was in the ‘oil for food’ program, or payments made to resist imperial occupation.

November 23, 2014 7:23 pm

I do find it somewhat sad that President Obama, a man with such obvious talent and who’s presidency started with such optimism and hope, will be remembered for not actually having achieved much and for taking a position that declared CO2 as a pollutant. History will not be kind I fear, and this should serve as a warning to other leaders of the folly of jumping on ideological bandwagons.

Reply to  ImranCan
November 24, 2014 12:46 am

That “obvious talent” wasn’t what the People expected. What exactly is the community organizer’s talent? We can rule out golf.
Weird too that none of his fellow students remember anything about him at Harvard … if he was that smart and talented, he’d surely be remembered for something.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Streetcred
November 25, 2014 2:34 pm

See my post above. Assuming President Obama was one of the top two out of 10 black students admitted to Harvard in the 1987-1988 year, his LSAT put him in the top 4% of all Americans, and in the bottom 20% of all Harvard students that year.

November 23, 2014 11:47 pm

The Emperor has no clothes. Everyone can see that he is naked, but the majority are still afraid to acknowledge it. Like the Emperor’s ministers in the story, they’re fearful of being accused by their peers of being “unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent.”

November 23, 2014 11:59 pm

Did Mr. Obama not say that he would pursue evidence based policy? I admire that. I do wish he would make good on that promise.
America has had good and bad presidents. But so what? To Obama’s critics: if you think that there is anything unusually bad about him, and the sky is going to fall, you’re just different kinds of alarmists. America has survived some rather ordinary presidencies. I’m sure it will survive this one.
And what’s a thread like this one without giving one’s political opinion?
Reagan was charismatic and seemed to enjoy himself (Obama started this way). GHWB was professional but for some reason could not hold onto a second term despite a huge spike in his popularity. Clinton was presidential material, but was lucky to be able to coast along with the happy ’90s vibe (I think many of you understand how great the ’90s were). GWB was not presidential material – the job did not suit him. He had to throw around his country’s military strength to look like he had a vision. Obama could have been rather good, but dropped the ball. I don’t understand his odd love affair for illegal immigration – was he not a lawyer? Hello?
None of these men were as great as Roosevelt or Eisenhower, though. Nevermind Churchill, my pick for the 20th century’s greatest man. But who is?

November 24, 2014 1:03 am

Our partnership with USA is strong enough to survive this pumped up, lily livered liar. Sorry about that, I just had to get it off my chest..

November 24, 2014 5:01 am

A small, bitter man, we can be glad that Obama can’t distinguish between spouting ugly venom and leadership. He has only ever been a “community organizer” and old habits die hard. This is, in general, the fatal flaw of much of the left: they can only ever be negative, childishly demanding, spiteful and mean. Given the reins of “power” (how I detest that term), they flail and thrash around looking for an enemy and are ultimately the authors of their own undoing. Were Obama a leader, he would be far more troublesome. But he’s not; he’s a spoiled child and now he’s going to throw his toys around.
Let him do so — he’s going to be the lynch pin of a generation-long pivot to a general rejection of the statists and their particular brand of divisive negativity. The institutional left is slowly, reluctantly, awakening to the reality that their messiah will have been a catastrophe, more for them than for the country they revile so much and upon which they had hoped Obama would inflict fatal wounds. Watch for them to turn on Obama more and more as they try to salvage what’s left of what they saw as the culmination of the “revolution”. It’s too late; the mask has been lifted; the left thought their hour had come, but they misjudged. People have awoken to the deception, and the shimmering mirage of utopia-through-government is dissipating, as does any fool’s paradise, into the unyielding pavement of reality.

November 24, 2014 5:46 am

Obama is a disgrace for what he did. He tried to embarrass the Australian government over its policy on climate in a most disrespectful way … dabbling in Australian politics, when he was advised not to do so.
Australia is one of America’s closest allies, hosting such facilities as ‘North West Cape’ in Western Australia, and the infamous ‘Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap” (a US spy facility) near Alice Springs, in the Northern Territory, and the US Marines in Darwin, in the Northern Territory.
Obama was more interested in engaging in political grandstanding with a Chinese communist leader than being diplomatic and courteous with a traditional western ally. What a bloody disgrace Obama is!

November 24, 2014 7:23 am

It also shows just how far in left field this radicalized president has stayed. He would abuse allies for a donor-based agenda topic.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights