Open Letter: President Obama's Legacy

Dear Mr President,

Every President seeks to leave a legacy, a memory of what they achieved in office, an unambiguous testament that all the personal effort and sacrifices they put into winning that high office meant something – that they made a difference.

There is a way you can do this, which will stand the test of time. Defund the climate science establishment.

For more than 30 years, America has poured enormous resources into investigating the alleged risk of anthropogenic climate change. All the climate science movement has to show, after all that time, is a set of climate models which don’t work, and a cowardly letter which seeks to use the authority of government to crush people who inconveniently highlight the glaring flaws in their work.

Demanding a RICO sanction against your academic and political opponents is an act of desperation, not strength. The climate alarmist movement is on its last legs. For 18 years, despite an unprecedented release of anthropogenic CO2, and a rise in atmospheric CO2 of around 60ppm, just under 20%, global temperatures have flatlined. The divergence between predictions and observations is now an utter embarrassment.

The movement will most likely fail in the next few years. Already leading climate scientists are switching to global cooling scares, in my opinion because they know the risk, that not only will the pause continue, but there is a real chance global temperatures may actually start to drop.

Mr. President, if you do the easy thing, and continue to associate your reputation, your legacy, with this failure, within your lifetime your legacy will be forgotten.

If instead you act against this pointless drain on American taxpayers, and take a courageous stand against those who would overturn the US constitution, to save themselves from the humiliation of having to admit they were wrong, your legacy will stand the test of time.

The choice is yours, Mr. President.

Yours Sincerely,

Eric Worrall

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
JimB

Fat chance!

Scott

Actually….The chances are “slim” and “none” and Slim’s just left the building……..

John Holdren won’t listen. Valerie Jarrett won’t listen. So the nominal President won’t listen. They are devoted to pursuing the ‘Climate Change’ scam as the path to socialism and ‘global governance’. They even claim it is a national defense priority. The White House has been taken over by mad ideologues.
/Mr Lynn

simple-touriste

“They even claim it is a national defense priority”
I wonder if there are still a capable military chiefs in the US. (Remember the F-117 in Serbia?)
Or in the NRC. (Remember in March 2011, the 50 miles evacuation recommendation?)

Jimbo

The best minds have looked at global warming and have applied the best computer models to project the problem. We must act not to dampen temperature rise. Now back to stinking reality.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg

Pete J.

Besides, if they were to fire all those “scientists” who produced and run all those failed models think of the effects it would have on our economy. Then we would only be left with the simulative effects of their unemployment checks, as the great prognosticator Nancy Pelosi says.

Val

“If you do the easy thing and continue… your legacy will be forgotten.”
I think you have it backwards.

Bahahahaha, what an absolutely loony letter.

gnomish

yeah.
he’s totally lost the plot.
i wonder what color is the sunrise on the planet where he lives…

Curious George

Eric, I like your spirit, but I hope – maybe wrongly – that the situation is not as desperate for heretics as it is for inquisitors.

Jimbo

The inquisitors know they are wrong. In any other science the divergence between 100 pc projections and observations would render the hypothesis sh!t. Rejected.
It is about MONEY. They have their entire careers gambled on future warming. Even if the world cooled they would somehow find that due to statistical ‘errors’ it actually warmed! Oh wait! We have reached super breaking point and utter desperation. Trenberth must be regretting putting his name to that letter. It will haunt him in future.

RD

Recall Kevin Trenberth, who wrote in one of the Climategate emails: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Kevin R.

And don’t forget the government money for the “clean energy” industry. This has created a political class of people that need this thing to continue. They want money, money, money. And the only place to get it is from the government.

Jimmy Haigh

Baz is but a pawn in the game but he doesn’t have the intelligence to realise it.

John R

I disagree with you Eric, I think he has done enough already to be referenced at any time in the future as the most gullible and idiotic President ever to lead the USA.

Simon

No one outdoes Reagan.

Chris Edwards

There was no better president in any of our lifetimes than R agan

Timo Kuusela Finland

As an European, I have the privilege to observe things that happen in the US like a person watching a herd from a tree; I get a better all around picture than the herd.
President Reagan is the man that lifted the USA from self pity and made her great again.Only unpatriotic people can say otherwise.In Europe leftist movement is still bitter to Reagan for what he accomplished.So, whenever I see someone mocking Reagan, if that person is a US citicen, I consider him/her as ungrateful, stupid person who does not deserve to live in the US.If that person is European, I just think he/she is not even worth arguing.
And yes, Obama is the worst thing that has happened to the US for a long time, if not ever.Just a opinion from an European.It seems like he intentionally wants to cause as much harm as he can.

Right – he ended the cold war by winning it!
In his words, the goal was “we win, they loose.”

BFL

For those who would consider a deity like support of Reagan that would be illogical to say the least (ahh how soon history is forgotten). Between the 2 sites below find about 29 reasons Reagan WASN”T such a great president (if you dare consider with an open attitude, difficult I know):
http://www.examiner.com/article/8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-the-worst-president-of-our-lifetime
http://jeff61b.hubpages.com/hub/21reasonsReaganwasaterriblepresident

catweazle666

BFL: “Between the 2 sites below find about 29 reasons Reagan WASN”T such a great president “
Most of which – if I don’t miss my guess – will boil down to the fact that in association with Margaret Thatcher (another great politician and hence massively hated by the Loony Left) and Pope John Paul he finished off the Evil Empire and ended the Cold War, thus putting paid to the white hope of all the closet (and not-so-closet) Commies and general Lefties for the dawn of the Great Socialist Workers’ Paradise.

Grant

BFL says;
Stupidity from the Examiner on the highest order.
Reagan and the U.S. Congress Tax reform law launched an unprecedented era of prosperity, creativity and growth in the U.S. that continues to this day. Those high tax rates were in place to control capital by giving congress the power to influence how capital was spent through tax legislation and by lowering them put economic decisions back into the hands of individuals.

Steve P

Grant
September 20, 2015 at 9:59 am
“Stupidity from the Examiner on the highest order.[…]
Reagan and the U.S. Congress Tax reform law launched an unprecedented era of prosperity, creativity and growth in the U.S. that continues to this day.”

Obviously, you’ve been living in a different U.S. than I have since then. I guess in your eyes all the abandoned storefronts, homeless people, and staggering national debt of $18 trillion are signs of unprecedent prosperity.
It is a curious aspect of hero-worship that facts don’t matter because it’s all about image, which fact you confirm by attacking the source (Examiner), while failing to address any of the points raised in the news article.
Trading arms for hostages, funding terrorists, negotiating with Iran to delay release of the hostages, granting amnesty to illegal aliens, tripling the national debt while reducing tax burden on the most wealthy from 70% to 28%, despite raising taxes on the middle class 11 times…these are just a few of the many misfortunes which came down on Reagan’s watch.
And let’s not forget the S&L scandal:
“This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. … All in all, I think we hit the jackpot,” said Reagan as he signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. Reagan declared that the bill, which changed the rules governing Savings & Loans, was “the first step in our administration’s comprehensive program of financial deregulation.”
By the end of Reagan’s presidency, the S&L industry lay in smoking ruins after a long campaign of looting that eventually cost taxpayers about $132 billion. This was the largest bailout of the financial industry in U.S. history until the Wall Street collapse of 2008..

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/16/seven-things-reagan-wont-mentioned-tonight-gops-debate/
(my bold)
We’ve had so many bad presidents in recent decades that it’s no easy matter picking the worst, but O is a leading contender, neck and neck with W; here I will just defer to that other Bush some call Poppy:
That’s not to say Reagan wasn’t beloved by some Americans. According to former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, George H.W. Bush told him in 1987 that “Reagan is a conservative. An extreme conservative. All the blockheads and dummies are for him.”

–ibid

catweazle666

Simon: “No one outdoes Reagan”
Bollocks.
Ronald Reagan was far and away the best President the USA has had in my seven decades on this Earth.

Scott

To Timo Kuusela Finland:
How absolutely refreshing to hear a European voice of reason! Thank you Sir.
I’ll have you know, I was foolish enough at the time, not to vote for Reagan.
Today, I think he is the best POTUS (President of the United States) in my lifetime.
I was wrong then, I admit it now. Your analysis is spot on!

Leonard Lane

And the most wicked and incompetent.
Ronald Reagan was a great president and a great man.

Stephen Richards

Timo Kuusela Finland
September 19, 2015 at 11:59 pm
I am also living on the continent. In what is now called LALALand. I remember at the time that many of us thought that Reagan and Maggie were mad BUT in hind sight we would all be under a worldwide UN driven communist regime. That’s where Obama et al want to take you right now.
From afar we see better than you. Obama will go down as the worst, most stupid president in history. His incompetence goes way beyond stupidity and encroaches on the dangerous. If he takes the US down with his EPA and other agencies then the world will suffer, democracy will suffer and the UN will flourish.
Come on you useless GOP politicians stand up and fight these clowns.

John Peter

I wonder if John R is an American. I am behind Timo Kuusela as another European concerned about the standing of USA in the World. To me a strong USA is a must and I also consider Regan one of the great USA Presidents honoured with destroying the Soviet Empire. Anyone against Regan is for sure against the security of a democratic West. To me Obama is a shadow of Regan and his obsession with “Climate Change” puzzles me. His mission should be to strengthen USA against enemies not the opposite.

Scott

I’m shocked again! John Peter, that makes two voices of common sense and reason coming from Europe in one blog post. See my comment to Timo Kuusela above. It now applies to you as well.
Thank you Sir for your common sense and good judgement.

Scott

I have been traveling around the world for the last 8 years. I almost NEVER meet a European who thinks that Ronald Reagan was a good President and also think that Barak Obama is the best POTUS ever.
They are SO SO wrong. The world suffers from weak, incompetent President’s of the US.
Between the global warming scam and the world falling apart in the Middle East, you’re finding out what a true amateur is all about.

Chris Edwards

Coming from England I agree! Thatcher and Reagan left a legacy of stability and modernization in Lybia untill the magic Kenyan shredded the advances and pushed the people back to the dark ages! TheEnglish rarely have time for Thatcher either but revere the fuckwit that had the IMF running the place! It’s all about teachers and the media and socialists own them both!

Hivemind

“His mission should be to strengthen USA against enemies not the opposite.”
I think you misunderstand Obama’s mission. It is not to strengthen the USA, but to create a “Legacy” (note the capital L), where he is remembered for doing something great. Many kings and presidents are remembered for fighting great wars. Obama wishes to be remembered for fighting a great war against “global warming”. The fact his enemy isn’t real makes it all the easier. When the temperature goes down, as it inevitably must since we are going into another ice age quite soon, Obama will claim that it was his fight that caused it.
All hail king Obama.

Tucci78

Writes Hivemind: <blockquoteI think you misunderstand Obama’s mission. It is not to strengthen the USA, but to create a “Legacy” (note the capital L), where he is remembered for doing something great. Many kings and presidents are remembered for fighting great wars. Obama wishes to be remembered for fighting a great war against “global warming”. The fact his enemy isn’t real makes it all the easier. When the temperature goes down, as it inevitably must since we are going into another ice age quite soon, Obama will claim that it was his fight that caused it.
At this point it’s worth considering Peter Grossman’s recent (1 September) essay “Obama and the Climate of Crisis,” from which I draw:

Barack Obama needs a climate crisis.
Or more to the point, he needs to persuade us that there really is one. In fact, over the past 40 years every major energy-related initiative was undertaken during, or in the aftermath, of what was perceived to be an energy crisis.
Of course most of these initiatives were passed by Congress but this president has decided that he will impose an energy policy, the Clean Power Plan, unilaterally because if he were to ask Congress for authority, they would likely refuse it. But since he is “convinced that no challenge poses a greater threat to our future and future generations than a changing climate,” he’s pushing it forward. And just in case Congress or the courts seek to reverse the Plan, he is seeking to gin up a sense of crisis in the country.
His “Plan” is necessary because if we don’t do it, global catastrophe looms. “[I]f we don’t get it right we may not be able to reverse [it], and we may not be able to adapt sufficiently. There is such a thing as being too late when it comes to climate change.”

[…]
In reality, the evidence is weak. Most climate computer models say we should have significantly higher temperatures by now than we do. Forecast of specific (dire) effects of climate change have so far been mostly wrong. The end of snow in winter in the UK? Many more “Katrinas” smashing into the US? An ice-free Arctic Ocean? The demise of the polar bear? None of these have come to pass.
You don’t have to think climate change is a hoax to believe that we will have the time and resources to adapt to a changing climate. In a real sense humans have done that for thousands of years. Nevertheless, President Obama, to use a favorite expression of his, is “doubling down” on the catastrophe rhetoric and by by-passing Congress is taking actions that his supporters must hope will be difficult to undo.
But unless we become convinced he’s right, (a heatwave in DC in January?) these actions almost certainly will be reversed no later than January 2017.

Of course, few reading here “think [anthropogenic] climate change is a hoax.” Most of us are familiar with Mr. Watts’ SurfaceStations.org project, we’ve read all the Climategate information tranches (including so very, very many of them collusive e-mail communications among the “climate catastrophe” charlatans), and we know pretty friggin’ well that it’s not a harmless hoax (a la Piltdown Man) but rather the biggest single systematically coordinated theft of value by deceit – FRAUD – in the history of the human race.

The pejorative dimensions of the term “conspiracy theory” were introduced into the Western lexicon by CIA “media assets,” as evidenced in the design laid out by Document 1035-960 Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report, an Agency communiqué issued in early 1967 to Agency bureaus throughout the world at a time when attorney Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment was atop bestseller lists and New Orleans DA Garrison’s investigation of the Kennedy assassination began to gain traction.

— Professor James F. Tracy (3 September 2015)

stock

I don’t think the Constitutional Destroyer in Chief cares much what we think.
His goal is to weaken the USA whilst helping to roll out a NWO via Trade Organizations and Climate Agreements, which are simply ways to control all energy supplies and of course transfer wealth to the wealthy.

nigelf

And that will stop once a realist is back in the White House, no matter if a treaty is signed concerning CC.
If the UN would like to try and force us to comply with the treaty they can go right ahead but it’s not gonna come out the way they would like.

Justthinkin

“The White House has been taken over by mad ideologues.”
Yup. About thirty years ago. And they just get madder. The USA and Canada seem hell bent on turning themselves into the ME.

Er … you realize that this is like asking Don Vito Corleone not to make someone an offer that they can’t refuse, right?

The Yellowstone Caldera will vomit before our Liar-in-Chief refutes his prior lies.

Paul Westhaver

Pearls before Swine.
You could take a dump in that ghetto snipe’s chicken salad, and it wouldn’t know you insult it. Your good and thoughtful words are wasted on a farm animal.

Pat Frank

That kind of language and those sorts of thoughts are really unnecessary Paul.

Auto

Pat
I agree.
I may not like POTUS – but, as you say: –
“That kind of language and those sorts of thoughts are really unnecessary Paul.”
Auto

PeterK

Bang on Paul!

Tucci78

You could take a dump in that ghetto snipe’s chicken salad, and it wouldn’t know you insult it. Your good and thoughtful words are wasted on a farm animal.

Eloquent but hardly accurate. For one thing, those of us who’ve been responsible for the husbandry of farm animals know altogether too well that this is the kind of critter what gets culled long before it gets to the age at which it can reproduce.
Jeez, and I’m on “permanent double-secret probation” with what seem like days of exile to “moderation” before one of my comments gets posted in this forum.
[Please do not either insult chicken salad nor farm animals by comparing them to Washington bureaucrats. .mod]

BFL

@ mod:
And to think that they most all go to worship at least once a week, What a waste….

Tucci78

Whines BFL at perceptive observations on the feculent character of our Indonesian-in-Chief:

And to think that they most all go to worship at least once a week….

Fortunately, those of us who “worship” the Bill of Rights rather than some sort of fantastical Great Sky Pixie don’t need to “go” anywhere in particular to do so, being able to make our devotions at any time of the day or night from whatever venue in which we find ourselves.

Barack Obama is the pampered pet of Chicago gangsters. He is good buddies with a murderous African dictator. And his wacko leftist academic background evokes memories of the style of sideways thinking that inspired the death marches in Cambodia.
The man burns to have a private army all his own. During the election campaign, he threatened to create a ‘domestic security force’ as large and well-funded as the entire U.S. military, just the thing to send door-to-door (as the police attempted in the Chicago projects) searching for privately-owned weapons. Sure enough, the very first item to appear on his website http://www.change.org following the election was a proposal to require ‘mandatory community service’ — 50 hours a year from junior high school and high school students, 100 hours from those in college — or the individuals in question needn’t expect to graduate.

— L. Neil Smith, “Only Nixon” (9 November 2008)

Dave

I once had a boss that said “don’t confuse me with facts.” Obama and his cadre of like-minded minions ignore facts…

Pat Frank

I’m worried that Obama’s legacy will be a nuclear war in the middle east.

Coming in oh, 11 years or so. His treaty guarantees it. Iran will continue secret nuclear research, produce a lot of spent ‘energy fuel’, then pull a Hanford Reservation. Took US about 18 months in WW2. Surely Iranians can do better now.
Iran sits on amongst the worlds most abundant nat gas reserves. CCGT is the world’s most efficient (lowest CO2) , fastest to build, and cheapest source of electricity. Iran does not need nuclear power for cheap electricity. It does for weapons.

simple-touriste

Nobody has ever made any weapons from spent PWR fuel.

MarkW

Haven’t doesn’t mean can’t.
There’s been no need, but the ability there.
That’s why Jiminy Carter banned re-processing, out of proliferation fears.
That and he was a left wing nut case.

simple-touriste

The ability of making weapons from spent fuel is where? Who has it?

George Tetley

simple -touriste
Here in Germany they “recycle” everything, you pay “deposits” on plastic bottles (about $0.40 each ) Now those Islamic Iranians in the name of there God have taken this a little further,, the “spent fuel ” goes through the recycle machine ( Just like the plastic water bottle ) and bingo! out pops the ultimate terrorist device, OMAMABOOM ,

beng135

simple-touriste:

Nobody has ever made any weapons from spent PWR fuel

You’re lacking imagination. The radiation “fear” is so ingrained now that a simple, conventional bomb packed w/powdered spent fuel would have a similar fear-factor of a true nuke.

Simple-touriste; remember Iran serendipitously “discovered” vast amounts of uranium in their country a week or so after the agreement was signed.

Steve P

All this alarm and posturing over Iran’s hypothetical ability and/or desire to produce a nuclear weapon is a clever but by now predictable distraction from Israel’s nuclear program, and its reputed 200+ nuclear weapons.
Nobody really knows how many nukes the Zionist state possesess, nor where they are, because Israel refuses any and all attempts to inspect Dimona and other facilities, and also works tirelessly behind the scenes to squelch any discussion, or even mention of its nuclear program.
The hypocrisy oozes from every pore of those caterwauling about Iran’s hypothetical, someday nuke, while overlooking Israel’s real ones. Talk about a double standard!
Israel, the US and a number of other pro-Israel states are working behind the scenes of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s annual conference to prevent a discussion of a resolution put forth by Egypt and the Arab States on the subject of “Israel’s nuclear capabilities.”
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-US-working-to-prevent-discussion-of-Israels-nuclear-capabilities-at-IAEA-meeting-416291
“After vote, Netanyahu says he had called 30 world leaders and convinced them to reject proposal given the situation in the Mideast, especially Iran’s efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/IAEA-rejects-proposal-on-oversight-of-Israeli-nuclear-facilities-4
I wonder how Netanyahu “convinced them”?

catweazle666

Steve P: “Israel’s nuclear program, and its reputed 200+ nuclear weapons.”
The difference is of course that Israel possesses her nuclear arsenal purely for defensive purposes and has not vowed to utterly destroy a civilised democratic country at the first available opportunity even if it leads to the utter destruction of Iran itself and further, to launch nuclear warheads at the Great and Little Satans, the USA and the UK.
Have you listened to the vile, provocative tirades coming from the theocratic Islamist swine in Tehran? It would appear not.

simple-touriste,
Centrifuges can separate fissionable elements. Iran is building tens of thousands of centrifuges.
Steve P,
You really can’t see the difference between a civilized country with Western values, and a mullah-run 7th century theocracy that makes daily broadcasts stating its intent to wipe other countries off the face of the earth?
Those threats are not made by disaffected individuals. They are made by the government of Iran.
I cannot believe that Congress just rolled over and went along with Obama’s unConstitutional treaty, handing over hundreds of $billions to Iran. For WHAT? What did it get us?
Then they went along with the preposterous notion that Iran will ‘police’ itself, by providing its own inspectors — and keeping everyone else out. Are you really that naive?
Two questions:
1. Who does Congress and Obama represent, American citizens, or Iran?
And:
2. Are they friggin’ INSANE??

Bucky, that’s no answer.
The entire issue is over trying to keep a crazed regime from having nuclear bombs.
Furthermore, the problem of Obama’s end-run around the Constitution’s treaty provision concerns anyone with more than one brain cell operating.
The #1 search result is from the Oxford University Dictionary:
trea·ty
[ˈtrētē]
NOUN
a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.
synonyms: agreement · settlement · pact · deal · entente · concordat
Well, Congress ratified Obama’s agreement. But like most of his actions, this one was not legitimate.
Congress should have told the President to take his proposed treaty to the Senate, whose duty is to give advice and consent. Instead, they rolled over.
Now we have a situation where a country that constantly declares its intent to completely destroy another country has been given the means and the apparent legitimacy to do so.
Furthermore, they are being handed hundreds of billions of dollars (!!!) as part of the agreement.
But no one has answered my question: for what? Why should we give Iran all that money? Shouldn’t that money be spent on American citizens instead?
And no one has tried to explain why Iran should be trusted to inspect itself. That’s just crazy talk, isn’t it? Therefore, my question: who does Obama and Congress represent? Americans? Or the Mullahs?
Those aren’t trick questions. Think hard. Take your time…

Bucky wonders:
Why do you have a problem with a country gaining access to the money that is rightfully theirs in the first place?
Hey, look! Another question. As usual, I have a good answer.
Buckingham doesn’t seem to understand this, but Iran desperately wants that loot. They would have agreed to a LOT in order to get their hands on it.
Instead, Obama simply handed it to them. We got nothing for it! How stupid is that? Worse, we caved in on every demand Iran made, even agreeing with the Mullahs that our inspectors would be barred from verifying that the agreement was being kept.
Rational folks look at that situation and wonder why we’re the patsy. But I have never accused Bucky of being rational.

Buckingham, as always, avoids the central point which he cannot refute, and sets up a strawman.
First off, the money in this agreement is controlled by U.S. banks, not by un-named other countries. Anyone who believes that we could not keep control of every dollar of Iran’s money is hopelessly naive. But the central point I made is that for nothing in return, we agreed to hand over hundreds of billions of dollars to a regime that constantly promises to destroy another country.
What did we get that was worth cutting loose that money, after THIRTY FIVE YEARS?
What, we couldn’t have waited a few more months, and negotiated something in return?
Like: ending the incessant, bloodthirsty threats? Like: releasing the American citizens that Iran is still holding hostage on trumped-up charges? Like: insisting that our inspectors verify that Iran is keeping its end of the deal?
Who cares if the money is Iran’s? To hell with them — they forcibly took over our embassy and held hundreds of our diplomats and staff hostage for over a year; paraded them blindfolded through the streets with guns to their heads.
So we froze their funds. Big deal, what did they expect? The mullahs were very lucky, because taking diplomats hostage is an act of war, and if the president at the time had been Ronald Reagan instead of the inept Jimmy Carter, Iran’s act of war would probably have caused a war and Iran would have lost many, many times the wealth that money represents.

Grant

Simple touriste says;
They won’t make weapons from spent fuel, they’ll make weapons by continuing to enrich uranium to 95% U-235 and have likely already done so. It’s not difficult to hide it and making a weapon these days is child’s play.

Steve P

dbstealey
September 20, 2015 at 3:32 pm
“trea·ty
[ˈtrētē]
NOUN
a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.
synonyms: agreement · settlement · pact · deal · entente · concordat”

Thanks dbstealey, I’m glad you brought up treaties, and money.
Perhaps you’ve heard of The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT?
Iran is a signatory to that treaty, where Israel is not.
It’s entirely possible my understanding is flawed, and you’ll correct me, but I thought U.S. law* prohibits foreign aid to countries failing to sign, or observe, the NPT.
* Symington Amendment and the Glenn Amendment (Section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act) – prohibits the U.S. government from providing taxpayer treasuries to nuclear armed non signatories.
~
catweazle666
September 20, 2015 at 5:14 pm
“Have you listened to the vile, provocative tirades coming from the theocratic Islamist swine in Tehran?”
Post an excerpt with original source and link please, and I’ll have a look.
When you make a strong statement like that, it should be accompanied with something to support it; else, it’s just argument by assertion.
Nulius in verba.

Steve P,
Just like Bucky, you’re trying to re-frame what I wrote, and argue with your interpretation. The reason is clear: you can’t refute my central point, which is the problem of Obama’s end-run around the Constitution’s treaty provision.
The money is an incidental part of that; if the Senate had been involved as required by the Constitution, there would not have been any treaty, and the money would not be an issue without it. That is the exact reason for Obama’s end-run around the Constitution’s ‘advise and consent’ treaty requirement.
Now, if you want to make a comment that refers to what my central point was, then answer the question I closed with:
Who does Obama and Congress represent? Americans? Or the Mullahs?
The Bible and every labor union say the same thing: You cannot serve two masters. Which one is being served in this deal?
Finally, Steve P, catweazel666 is right, and you must be a true hermit if you’re not aware of the incessant threats emanating from the Islamist gov’t in Tehran.

L. Buckingham isn’t an American, so I understand his ignorance on this topic. What he’s referring to is part and parcel of the same end-run. Note the date.
But I had to LOL! at his UN resolutions. I can just see Bucky cracking his knuckles and sweating, as he desperately searches for things that I for one will never waste my time reading.
See, there’s realpolitik, which supersedes the UN. The US has disregarded the UN on occasion as have other countries, and I for one would cheer if that totally corrupt nest of vipers was permanently evicted from our shores.
Maybe you’d like to give them a rent-free home down there? Maybe you could even put one or two of them up in your apartment or tent or whatever, since you’re so impressed with those connivers.
The UN is behind the repeatedly debunked “dangerous man-made global warming” scare. You probably even believe those toothless resolutions you wasted your time searching for, that we should have given Iran’s money back a long time ago. heh. As if.

catweazle666

“Too big to fail”.

toorightmate

Is Oh Bummer still President?
I thought he had vacated the position some time ago.

He does not have the intelligence to save his “legacy”.

Lorne WHITE

Too bad you didn’t recruit several sceptical scientists at WUWT to Jointly send this letter and let Obama know that the science is completely unsettled by ongoing research.

pippen kool

” is completely unsettled by ongoing research”
that is, by BS on the internet.

Oh, Pippen, don’t be so hard on yourself.

Dawtgtomis

Now here is a prediction you don’t need a model for; The science of climate mechanisms is sure to be unsettled until at least 2100.

BFL

What is “too bad” is that the comments aren’t included with the letter!

Climate change faux mitigation has the potential for the elites to secure a GIGANTIC cash windfall to be seized from the makers and then distributed to the takers (aka buying votes).
It’s Obama’s specialty, his raison d’être.

The working people in Detroit know all about your legacy, Mr President.

Pointman

Dawtgtomis

Love that guy!

Call me cynical, but just watch the sniggers, even from him – and it’s five years ago.

Pointman

Danley Wolfe

Time will tell that the president’s legacy is enduring. The fact that he took positions (climate and other) that the majority of Americans do not support works against it. Executive agreements, executive memoranda and administrative regulations to circumvent majority rule will not be lasting. Even though he gloats that he will use his pen to get his way. However, the longer they are allowed to stand the harder it will be to rectify because changes over time become institutionally embedded.

John

Round about way of saying it will be lasting as an example of what not to do so history isn’t doomed to repeat itself?
If the UN is wise, members will realize many Member States rely on oil (carbon) exports for a majority of their GDP. The pricing is also an issue – production cost vs market value.
Obama et al climate push is destabilizing the Middle East.

Steve Oregon

Nice message but it will fall on vile ears.
The movement, its leaders, scientists and its advocates are incapable of anything….human.
Quite the contrary. They are all committed to continued, vicious mendacity, period.
Assuming the worst is the only rational and responsible approach with these people.

Dawtgtomis

If Mr. Obama really wants to reach those who, in his words “need their feet put to the fire” he should take a moment and comment on this blog, engage in dialogue and debate the issue like a true American born citizen.

TonyL

an unambiguous testament that all the personal effort and sacrifices they put into winning that high office meant something

Well, that is an interesting way to put it.
For me, only two questions remain:comment image
Who put him up there, and why?

Dawtgtomis

What else could it be but a cruel joke?

TonyL

1) The destruction of the US economy through massive debt, and it’s consequent elimination as a world economic power.
2) Nuclear weapons to the Mideast, and all that entails.
3) World energy supplies in a state of great flux and realignment.
4) An aggressive China emergent, an aggressive Russia re-emergent, Europe (and NATO with it) falling apart.
Tremendous forces have been set in motion and are now at play in the world.
This is no joke.

Dawtgtomis

Easy, Tony. That had a sarc factor of 7 on my meter, didn’t think it needed a tag to get a laugh, considering the picture. My apologies, as no one could agree with you more.

TonyL

@ Dawtgtomis
OK, sometimes I get a torqued up i bit tight.

Dawtgtomis

No problem buddy, I been there too.

Dawtgtomis

Hey dave, isn’t that the red-eared turtle that was supposed to be extinct by now? 😉

Stephen Richards

Hispanics, for money.

Obama the Post Turtle, a Limerick.
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year-old rancher, who’s hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.
Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his role as our president. The old rancher said, “Well, ya know, Obama is a “Post Turtle”. Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him, what a “Post Turtle” was. The old rancher said, “when you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a “post turtle”.
The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor’s face so he continued to explain. “you know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there, he’s elevated beyond his ability to function, and you just wonder what kind of dumb @$$ put him up there to begin with.”
Post turtle, post turtle, why are you there?
Soros is evil and he put me here.
I have to come down’
I am but a clown,
for I don’t belong in the stratosphere.
http://lenbilen.com/2012/02/07/obama-the-post-turtle-a-limerick/

u.k.(us)

If nobody barks up the tree, it makes the hunting that much more difficult.

Dawtgtomis

That’s why the questioners quickly they’re quelling.

601nan

Mr .Obama would rather [trimmed, content and tone excessive and off topic]
That is all Mr. Obama cares about.
[.mod]

dmh

moderator
this is a sick and twisted comment that doesn’t belong on this blog.
[It was trimmed. .mod]

LOL appealing to the Ecoloon in Chief to stamp on climate fraud is like appealing to al-Gore, or John Kerry, or Jerry Brown or – well, ANY Dumbocrat politician. The Kenyan is no Gorbachev – if he was planning on pulling down that wall, he wouldn’t have been building it higher and higher for his first 2 terms.

hunter

If you believe the climate obsession is on its last legs I have a bridge to sell you.

Dawtgtomis

This guy came from nowhere, even in Illinois politics. He promised a change in governance and delivered a change in constitutional interpretation.

Pamela Gray

I would prefer he pound in that last nail on the coffin of his legacy. No presidential library for him. It will likely be just a storage rental. 10 by 12 at the most.

Tucci78

No presidential library for him.

Nah. Just locate it in a high-security federal penitentiary, and assign him as librarian.
He’s gonna need a prison job as he serves all those consecutive felony sentences, right?

Dawtgtomis

There ought to be radio PSAs that state:
In December 2015 the president wants to begin the process of making the US subject to a world governing body for energy management.
If you find that climate change has not particularly influenced your life and you are not wishing to be subjected to a bureaucratic global rulership of the resources which supply heating, cooking, transport and electrical energy, you are kindly advised to contact your local senator and representative with your concerns.
Do you think it would sink in?

Dan Toppins

“The choice is yours, Mr. President.
Yours Sincerely,
Eric Worrall”
And he has been very clear about his choice of Executive privilege and his abuse of using it!

Eliza

Sorry but useless such a letter/similar needs to be signed by Dyson, Giever,Singer, Spencer ect and thousands not dozens

Tucci78

Writes Eliza:

Sorry but useless such a letter/similar needs to be signed by Dyson, Giever,Singer, Spencer ect and thousands not dozens

You think that honest scientists could possibly have any persuasive power over Stanley Ann Dunham’s “good Muslim schoolboy” and Cook County machine apparatchik, “Barry” Soebarkah?
Say rather George Soros on the signature line, along with all the other contributors, bundlers, and boodlers who’ve bought him over the years.

Oldseadog

More than 31,000 scientists did that in 2007 and so far it hasn’t made much difference.

Jean Meeus

I find that the Open Letter by Eric Worrall is excellent.
Jean Meeus

I agree and while knowing the futility of it nonetheless a few minds will have been changed. It had to be written.

Mike

Jean Meeus, any chance you are this Jean Meeus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meeus

Jean Meeus

Mike, yes that’s me.

Extreme solutions are usually bad solutions, and this is a rather extreme solution and a very bad idea.
We may agree that climate science is a complex issue and at there are many topics where our understanding is deficient, but the answer to that is not to cut research. That is anti-science.
The answer to deficient understanding is more research. We need to know more about the climate, not less.
As all other civilized societies take AGW deeply serious, a defunding of the American climate science could make America a laughingstock in the international society.
But I fear that the educated people in the world would think that this issue is too serious to laugh at. Other nations all over the globe put huge resources in their efforts to cut their carbon emissions. If US defund their efforts I think they will become isolated in the scientific society. Scientists from the US may choose to do their research in other counties where they get the funding.
/Jan

Bubba Cow

why cut carbon emissions?
why not fight for carbon based life and carbon dioxide?
unlink climate research from socialism and put it back in science

climatologist

Wise letter among all the anti Obama nonsense. He is a good president in contrast to Bush and Reagan.

Jaakko Kateenkorva

Fat chance. Obama is purging thoughtcriminals e.g. with his public campaign https://www.barackobama.com/news/play-denier-bingo/. He cannot risk requests for adding his own photo any more than facing racial discrimination accusations due to white only nominees.
To Obama’s defense, he admits well over 25% dissidents in the congress. The most notorious on this particular slippery slope made no such concessions.

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!
Fine, in that case why do we keep having to fund more and more research?

Lorne WHITE

“Fine, in that case why do we keep having to fund more and more research?”
Because sceptical scientists properly question what has already been researched – in all directions. Most advances in all fields, from Socrates through Galileo to AGW, come with challenge to existing social order.
The eternal human problem is to find a neutral stage where legitimate debate can get beyond the competition for status and hierarchy that exists in all mammalian societies.

Billy Liar

You really think AGW counts as an advance?

Chris Edwards

The highly paid search for unicorn farts never ends!

Lorne WHITE

The DEBATE about AGW has produced enormous advances in our understanding of the complexity of the various climate regions and climate history on Earth.
Maybe, because of this, our previous simplicistic ‘knowledge’ will be swept away and replaced by a better understanding of our place as bacteria on Earth’s skin … 😋.

Jeff

Mr. Worrall, with all due respect, your letter will fall on deaf ears. Using RICO to attack scientists who are skeptical of the CAGW hypothesis is entirely in line with not only the President’s own personal views, but also the way his administration has weaponized government against the citizenry. It’s even possible the “scientists” who signed the infamous letter had the idea suggested to them by people in the executive branch itself.

Ivor Ward

Obama is a glove puppet. More important to get at whoever has his/her hand up his tootsy.

Bubba Cow

follow the money

John Endicott

“If instead you act against this pointless drain on American taxpayers, and take a courageous stand against those who would overturn the US constitution, …”\\
Unfortunately you are writing your letter to one of those people who has shown themselves willing and eager to overturn the US constitution at every turn.

John Peter

Eric Worrall’s letter is directed to the wrong person and will be totally ignored as also suggested several times above. Instead he should have written to Senator Inhofe detailing out all the adjustments made to the global temperature records by NOAA & GISS and how they now are made to divert from the satellite records. Every month seems to have a little bit of extra current warming added in the hope that the gap to the models can be diminished prior to Paris December 2015.
Senator Inhofe promised earlier this year a Senate investigation into the make-up of the surface temperature sets. I would think that the time has arrived to commence the investigation. Maybe on the other hand he is waiting until early next year to allow NOAA & GISS to “bring the noose closer to their necks”. The more extra warming they add the easier it will be to prove them wrong may be the thinking. Maybe a finding of fiddled statistics just before an Agreement in Paris is brought to Congress could be the strategy Inhofe has in mind.

Bob Burban

“The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter.” – Mark Twain

Jimbo

There is a saying that states: ‘sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’ and all that. Will we get sauce?

09/15/2015
Obama Thinks Students Should Stop Stifling Debate On Campus
He says they shouldn’t be “coddled and protected from different points of view.”
“”I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women,” Obama said. “I gotta tell you I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.”
“Sometimes I realized maybe I’ve been too narrow-minded, maybe I didn’t take this into account, maybe I should see this person’s perspective,” Obama said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-college-political-correctness_55f8431ee4b00e2cd5e80198

Barbara

Scientific American, Sept.16, 2015
‘Obama Seeks Psychological Help with Climate Change’
“Yesterday, he issued an executive order instructing federal agencies to use behavioral science when addressing rising temperatures and other policies.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-seeks-psychological-help-with-climate-change
This policy and other policies. And will this executive order, behavioral science, stand a Constitutional test?

Regarding the letter to Obama which Kevin Trenberth cosigned calling for skeptics to be tried in court for presenting fundmentally critical climate science, well, it is a much worse case of corrupted intellectual integrity than the letter against Einstein’s papers/theories signed by 100 establishment German scientists. Why is the anti-skeptic letter to Obama that was cosigned by Trenberth much worse than the German scientist’s letter against Einstein? Because Trenberth endorsed trying in court all climate focused scientists for the act of thinking critically about his (Trenberth’s) views of climate science, whereas the German scientist’s letter against Einstein did not ask for Einstein to be tried in court.
John

He’s to shallow, he don’t understand the science and he will continue as a dishonest activist ..
https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/facts-be-damned-its-all-about-the-money/

“”Steve P on September 20, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Grant
September 20, 2015 at 9:59 am
“Stupidity from the Examiner on the highest order.[…]
Reagan and the U.S. Congress Tax reform law launched an unprecedented era of prosperity, creativity and growth in the U.S. that continues to this day.”
Obviously, you’ve been living in a different U.S. than I have since then. I guess in your eyes all the abandoned storefronts, homeless people, and staggering national debt of $18 trillion are signs of unprecedent prosperity.
It is a curious aspect of hero-worship that facts don’t matter because it’s all about image, which fact you confirm by attacking the source (Examiner), while failing to address any of the points raised in the news article.
Trading arms for hostages, funding terrorists, negotiating with Iran to delay release of the hostages, granting amnesty to illegal aliens, tripling the national debt while reducing tax burden on the most wealthy from 70% to 28%, despite raising taxes on the middle class 11 times…these are just a few of the many misfortunes which came down on Reagan’s watch.
And let’s not forget the S&L scandal:
“This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. … All in all, I think we hit the jackpot,” said Reagan as he signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. Reagan declared that the bill, which changed the rules governing Savings & Loans, was “the first step in our administration’s comprehensive program of financial deregulation.”
By the end of Reagan’s presidency, the S&L industry lay in smoking ruins after a long campaign of looting that eventually cost taxpayers about $132 billion. This was the largest bailout of the financial industry in U.S. history until the Wall Street collapse of 2008..
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/16/seven-things-reagan-wont-mentioned-tonight-gops-debate/
(my bold)
We’ve had so many bad presidents in recent decades that it’s no easy matter picking the worst, but O is a leading contender, neck and neck with W; here I will just defer to that other Bush some call Poppy:
That’s not to say Reagan wasn’t beloved by some Americans. According to former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, George H.W. Bush told him in 1987 that “Reagan is a conservative. An extreme conservative. All the blockheads and dummies are for him.”
–ibid””
There is much above to disagree with. Honestly, I am not sure if it is Steve P. or Grant who wants to rewrite history and blame Reagan for the S&L failures in the 1980s so please forgive me if I’m addressing the wrong person.
The law is named Risk Based Capital Guidelines, (RBCG), and it was signed by Carter. The new requirements placed upon S&Ls by RBCG were phased in over time with the final shoe dropping during Reagan’s presidency. The requirements for 50% cash on deposit to offset the lender’s commercial loan portfolio was such a huge change that many of the rural institutions had no chance to meet the new rules.
Please give us a source which shows the final accounting of the Resolution Trust Corporation’s disposition of all S&L assets and supports your claimed $ loss.
Cheers,
Gudolpops

catweazle666

gudolpops: “There is much above to disagree with…”
You can say that again.
This bit is particularly egregious – a flat out lie, in fact: “negotiating with Iran to delay release of the hostages”.
In fact, the hostages were released the day before Reagan took office, 20 January 1981.
The Mullahs in Iran were very well aware of the consequences if they had held on to them after Reagan had taken office – they would not have been pleasant for their poisonous regime.
One wonders why some people attempt to propagate such transparent, easily discredited lies.

Steve P

In his bizarre and audacious attempt to rewrite history, catweazle666 claims:
“In fact, the hostages were released the day before Reagan took office, 20 January 1981.
[…]
One wonders why some people attempt to propagate such transparent, easily discredited lies.”

Yes, one does wonder. Perhaps you are simply displaying your staggering ignorance; otherwise, the reader may decide for himself who is lying.
“On Jan. 20, 1981, Iran released 52 Americans who had been held hostage for 444 days, minutes after the presidency had passed from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan. The hostages were placed on a plane in Tehran as Reagan delivered his inaugural address.
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/jan-20-1981-iran-releases-american-hostages-as-reagan-takes-office/?_r=0
Here’s ABC’s Ted Koppel:
“The Iranians stage-managed the drama down to the last second. Precisely at noon, just as Reagan began to recite the oath of office, the planeload of Americans was permitted to take off.
30 years after the Iran hostage crisis, we’re still fighting Reagan’s war
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012102914.html
“On the day of his inauguration…20 minutes after he concluded his inaugural address, the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the release of the hostages. The timing gave rise to an allegation that representatives of Reagan’s presidential campaign had conspired with Iran to delay the release until after the election to thwart President Carter from pulling off an “October surprise”.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
U.S. government officials are in high dudgeon again – this time over Iran’s audacity in naming an ambassador to the United Nations who allegedly played a minor role in the 1979-81 crisis in which 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days in Iran. But the same U.S. officials ignore the now overwhelming evidence that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush helped extend the hostages’ suffering to gain an edge in the 1980 election.
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/09/reagan-bush-ties-to-iran-hostage-crisis/

Steve P says:
30 years after the Iran hostage crisis, we’re still fighting Reagan’s war
Steve P has been brainwashed. He probably believes that nonsense.
The fact is that abducting American diplomats and their staff and holding them hostage (and humiliating our country by marching them down the streets of Tehran, blindfolded and with guns to their heads) was unequivocally an act of war.
By international law, the U.S. would have been fully justified in attacking Iran and laying waste to their country, no different than we did with Germany and Japan in WWII.
But that would have required more than an inept, bumbling president like Jimmy Carter. The whole thing was his fault, anyway.
Carter actively encouraged the Shah of Iran —America’s true friend — to vacate his country at the critical moment. In any revolution, each side needs a leader. The Islamists had Khomeini. The loyalists had the Shah, along with the military hardware, the Air Force, armor, and everything else needed to put down the insurrection.
But because of Carter’s incompetent meddling, the country was suddenly without a leader. That was decisive. Furthermore, Carter had advised the Shah some months earlier to stop paying the monthly stipends to the country’s mullahs.
Of all the stupid things to do, that was by far the most stupid. Iran’s mullahs depended on their monthly income from the Shah. The quid-pro-quo was that they would support the Shah. But when the Shah took Carter’s advice and abruptly stopped the payments, naturally great hatred was generated. Most mullahs were not rich, and they depended on the monthly payments.
The mullahs exerted great influence in Iran, which they still do. When the Shah took Carter’s advice and eliminated their financial support — simply because a small minority of the mullahs were being critical of the Shah — as one, the mullahs turned on him, whipping the populace into a frenzy. Against all odds, the revolution succeeded. The two central reasons were the ending of the subsidies, and the Shah vacating the Peacock Throne and hightailing it to America, leaving no one in charge.
President Reagan inherited Carter’s blunders. But he was handed such a mess that all his attempts at peacemaking came to nothing: Iran has been America’s sworn enemy ever since, and only a fool would think otherwise.
Even Obama has tried to mend fences, to no avail. He just handed Iran $300 billion, and the means to build nuclear bombs. What did it get us? NOTHING. Obama wouldn’t even ask Iran to release the 5 American citizens who have been held on trumped-up charges. Is there anyone who doesn’t believe that Iran would relesse them — for $300 billion?
Yes. Plenty of folks are brainwashed. They live in their own fantasy world. See the link I posted above.
Steve P may believe that “we’re still fighting Reagan’s war”. But he’s been brainwashed. We are fighting because of the mess President Carter caused to happen. It didn’t need to be this way. But things like that happen when an inept, bumbling president thinks he knows how to handle international relations. We’ve got another one in office right now.

Chris Edwards

That would be Clintons debacle

Steve P

dbstealey
September 21, 2015 at 10:56 am
“Steve P may believe that “we’re still fighting Reagan’s war”. But he’s been brainwashed.”
~
Unfortunately dbstealey, in your haste to make your point, you’ve missed the important detail that the words you have erroneously attributed to me, are in fact the title of Ted Koppel’s Washingon Post opinion piece, which I quoted, and linked. It begins:

30 years after the Iran hostage crisis, we’re still fighting Reagan’s war
By Ted Koppel
Friday, January 21, 2011; 1:00 PM
On Jan. 20, 1981, 52 American diplomats, intelligence officers and Marines were finally released after being held hostage for nearly 15 months at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

You further say: “But because of Carter’s incompetent meddling….
Yes, well this is a constant refrain among those glorifying Reagan, who was so interested in the hostage’s fate that he worked to ensure they stayed right where they were, until he could ride onto the scene, and rescue them.
In my view, it was earlier Western meddling in the internal affairs of Iran that got the Iranians screaming mad at us in the first place, paving the way for the seizure of power by the mullahs, and setting the stage for the resultant hostage crisis, but no doubt, Carter was getting some very bad advice too.
Mosaddegh had been deposed in 1953 after he nationalized Iranian oil, which had been under British control since 1913.
“Critics say the scheme was paranoid, colonial, illegal, and immoral—and truly caused the “blowback” suggested in the pre-coup analysis. […]The US-backed coup, in effect, had ended Iran’s last fully democratic government, and there would be no return of democracy even after the Shah’s removal.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
Of course, for some interests, blowback may be an acceptable outcome, if not the desired effect.

Actually, that has been proven to be without merit or foundation. Indeed, the democrat congress investigated that allegation, not due to any evidence, but due to the “seriousness of the charge”. It was of course ludicrous as Bush was not in Paris during the alleged “meeting” to keep the hostages there, nor has any evidence ever surfaced to support the lie. And repeating it does not make it so. Just as repeating what Koppel said does not make it a fact.

Steve P says:
…Reagan, who was so interested in the hostage’s fate that he worked to ensure they stayed right where they were, until he could ride onto the scene, and rescue them.
Got a verifiable citation confirming that nonsense? More to the point: do you actually believe it?

catweazle666

Steve P: “…Reagan, who was so interested in the hostage’s fate that he worked to ensure they stayed right where they were, until he could ride onto the scene, and rescue them.”
Utter bollocks.
Stop making stuff up.

Steve P says:
…you’ve missed the important detail that the words you have erroneously attributed to me…
My apologies, but the way you posted it, it looked like a comment you were making. No quote marks, etc. And of course, it did seem to be something you would believe.
Next, a couple of us have disputed your contention that President Reagan somehow engineered keeping the American hostages in Iran so he would look good. That’s preposterous, but we gave you a chance to prove it. The only response was *crickets*.
Next, it seems your main criticism of the Reagan Administration is the S&L crisis. Aside from the fact that with the changed rules that was bound to happen, if it were true that President Reagan had caused the S&L crisis (he didn’t), that would be a very small price to pay for what he did, in fact, bring about:
Reagan’s policies and actions led directly to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the downfall of the Soviet Union. Russia now is but a small power by comparison; the Soviet Union was a real threat, but today’s Russia is about half its former size.
Make no mistake: the FSB (formerly the KGB) has the same players, and they have been spectacularly successful in planting ‘useful fools’ in academia and in the media. An entire generation of Americans has been brainwashed, and that is no vague, throwaway term. It is all too real, and it is the basic reason for the destructive tribalism of our society; the casual dismemberment of living, healthy, almost-born infants to be sold for parts, the dumbing-down of society via a totally corrupt and inept “.edu” establishment, the gutting of our military, including the cashiering of flag-rank officers who are expected to make the ‘right’ choice: obedience to Obama, or to the country, and the discharge of 40,000 soldiers at a very dangerous time in the world, and the ‘dangerous man-made global warming hoax; the constant intolerance displayed by the Left, the endless accusations of “racism”, the incessant attacks on Western religions, while trumpeting the wonders of ISIS, the destruction of the rule of law by the corruption of the courts, and just about everything else that is sending our great country spiralling down toward destruction.
You think this is all happening randomly?? That it’s all a big coincidence? If so, you’re far more credulous that I thought.
When the Soviets realized that they could not win a war against the West because of Reagan’s decisive actions, they changed course and began to ramp up their plan to infiltrate and take over various “organs” (to use their term) of our free society.
They have been astonishingly successful. No one with any common sense would believe that almost every professional body, and university, and institution would publish the same “climate change” statement, almost word for word. They are all saying the same thing, toeing the same Party line by promoting the exact same “humans are the primary cause of climate change” narrative.
Human nature isn’t like that. There are always differences of opinion, which are often completely contradictory to each other. But in the “climate change” narrative, every professional body has exactly the same position: humans are causing global warming, and it’s gonna be bad. It’s almost like their opinions were bought and paid for, eh?
And of course, their membership is never allowed to communicate through membership lists. Their “survey” and “poll” questions are equally bogus. Only head-nodders who are too lazy to think about it would accept what they’re being spoon-fed by the media.
Finally, a word abouth the current Pope. As a Catholic, I watched Pope John Paul II face down the Soviets in 1980 in Poland, along with unionist Lech Walesa. The Soviets swore they would never again be humiliated by another Pope. For the past 35 years they have put their energy into making certain that would never happen again. Pope Francis is the direct result. Could there be anyone more Communist than this new Pope?
This is all part of a deliberate plan — and it would be very surprising if there were not such a plan in effect. No one understands human nature better than the KGB. What you observe in today’s society may appear to be nothing more than anarchy. But always ask yourself the question: “Cui bono?” You will see the answer.

catweazle666

dbstealey: “You think this is all happening randomly? It’s all by coincidence? If so, you’re far more credulous that I thought.”
Sniff…sniff…hmmm…
Do I smell ‘Useful Idiot’?

Do I smell ‘Useful Idiot’?
Yep, it’s Steve P, and there are plenty like him around.
. . . . .
philjourdan says:
Actually, that has been proven to be without merit or foundation… And repeating it does not make it so. Just as repeating what Koppel said does not make it a fact.
Koppel used to have some credibility. But that was gone a long time ago.

Steve P

gudolpops
September 20, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“There is much above to disagree with…Please give us a source”
I take it you are not entirely at ease with standard formatting procedures here, but my comment,
Steve P on September 20, 2015 at 12:40 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/19/open-letter-president-obamas-legacy/#comment-2031411
which you have dumped in its entirety, sans formatting but including the link to the Intercept article by John Fox, was in response to a comment by Grant at September 20, 2015 at 9:59 am. You’ll find it stealthily lurking directly above mine.
Please take note in my comment that the italicized parts enclosed by quotation marks indicate that I’m quoting from some other source.
The $132 billion figure appears in the linked Intercept article by John Fox, which you apparently either failed to read, understand, or take note that the $132 billion figure was hotlinked to its source, which is the 1996 GAO document FINANCIAL AUDIT Resolution Trust Corporation’s 1995 and 1994 Financial Statements.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ai96123.pdf
Where you’ll find on Pg. 13, Table 3, the following:
“…Of the $160.1 billion in total direct and indirect costs, approximately
$132.1 billion, or 83 percent was provided from taxpayer funding sources.”

Because that figure is from 1996, it is doubtful that it is the final accounting of the S&L scandal. You’re free to provide that figure, if you have it.
Some deregulation did take place under Carter, but the S&L scandal took place on Reagan’s watch. I doubt you’ll find anyplace where Carter talks about “..hitting the jackpot.”

Steve P

erratum
s/b …linked Intercept article by Jon Schwarz, not John Fox.

Gregory Lawn

The S&L crisis was created by Carter. The S&L’s had 30 year 5% fixed rate loans outstanding when Carter drove real interest rates to 20% +. The banks had to pay more for funds than they were receiving on loans creating unsustainable losses. His short term fix was to allow the S&L’s to write off losses to goodwill which did nothing but postpone the problem into Regan’s term. The crisis was owned by Carter.

Gregory Lawn,
Correct, I remember it well. Passbook savings rates were 5.25%, which meant that savers were effectively subsidizing Carter’s inflation. Buying power was being taken from savers by paying them far below the real rate of return (by law, banks and S&L’s could not pay higher interest than that).
Around that time I bought a multi-unit apartment building. My interest rate on the mortgage was 25%!
But it was a great investment, because the declining interest rates that followed — due to Paul Volcker, Reagan’s Fed chief — caused property values to rise. Owners benefitted, not renters.
There’s a lesson there: renters never share in property appreciation. In fact, they pay for it. So it’s always best to buy your own home if possible.

Patrick bols

No matter what you think about our presidents, including Mr. Obama, we should keep in mind that they have the most challenging job in the world. They are also human and prone to err. As a final comment, they earn our respect, the respect that we automatically grant to all people we encounter. I am very disappointed with some of the comments in this blog. We are doing a disservice to the great service of Anthony Watts and the other sincere contributors to this great blog.

Patrick

American friends of my parents who I met while in Belgium are totally and utterly dismayed at the destruction the man has brought upon your great nation. And people voted for him, twice???

Scott

Eric,
You’ve made a fatal flaw in your plea. Common sense in not common and your argument assumes that BHO cares a twit about CAGW.
You’re assuming that BHO believes his “scientists”. I don’t think he cares a wit what they think.
To him, his legacy is about the politics of creating a “One World Order” and income re-distribution from the rich (as he sees it – “colonial”) nations to the poor (aka: in political correctness terms) “developing nations”.
A few years ago a member of the UN (was he in the IPCC?) whose name I cannot recall basically said exactly this about the “Global Warming” (Science).
Obama sees his legacy as making the West pay for the East (and by proxy – what he perceives to be our past indiscretions) – Period!

Barbara

Which of those now running for the Oval Office in 2016 is “presidential-timber” anyway? Not a rosy picture for the future, IMO.

The longer the time to follow the main efforts of science and policy to define and determine the cause of climate change and the consequences in terms of global warming. But, unfortunately, I have not seen anything logical in many stories, especially those that support the policy and not a science that studies and respecting the laws of nature.
In many places I have called attention to the fact that climate change on the planet, not only on nšoj planet, depend on the relationships of the planets and the sun.
In what way can this be proved? It depends on the interests and moods of powerful circles and when they realize that the progress of science can not be achieved with a profit interest in this field.
Today they all run and rush headlong into the unknown, only if they consider that there can be realized a personal profit.
These all who read this, I can not ignore this, as they wish, because nobody can forbid you, but remember, that I have the obvious idea that these ENIGMA successfully complete !!.
Offering up with his idea, but now I stand by that, that NASA and the Government of the United States if they have this interest, can be a little “lowered down” and to accept the offer with a contractual obligation to perform it in detail.
Read this and think there is no need to be making fun of this, but to try to solve.
I can not wait to fall soon many false theories about climate change.