Note to Politifact: Obama DID say there is No Greater Threat than Climate Change


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Politifact has just claimed Paul Babeu, the Republican Sheriff of Pinal County, Ariz., who is at the front line of combatting Mexican Drug Cartels encroaching into North America, made a mostly false statement when he claimed President Obama thinks climate change is the number one security threat. A few minutes web search was all it took, to show that Paul Babeu’s interpretation of President Obama’s statements is entirely reasonable.

Paul Babeu, the Republican Sheriff of Pinal County, Ariz., near the U.S.-Mexico border, has repeatedly criticized President Barack Obama’s administration for its lack of border security.

Babeu, who’s running for Congress this November against a Republican field that includes David Gowan, Ken Bennett and Wendy Rogers, warned of Mexican drug cartels in his county ahead of Memorial Day weekend on Fox News’ Hannity on May 26.

But he also used the interview to make a political jab, questioning Obama’s priorities.

“The president has said the national security threat facing America, the top one, is global warming,” Babeu said. “It’s not an unsecured border, it’s not the terrorists we should be fighting and defeating.”

This is not the first time we have heard a statement like this:

Babeu said, “The president has said the national security threat facing America, the top one, is global warming.”

Obama continues to cite climate change as a great threat to the world, but framing the issue as the country’s top national security threat is an exaggeration. Obama has said fighting terrorism is his most urgent priority.

The Arizona sheriff ignores important context, so we rate his claim as Mostly False.

Read more:

The following is a video of President Obama saying “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”.

Or how about this Obama quote from The Atlantic;

“ISIS is not an existential threat to the United States. Climate Change is a potential existential threat to the entire world if we don’t do something about it”

Read more:

Here is President Obama speaking to the United States Coast Guard Academy;

Here at the Academy, climate change — understanding the science and the consequences — is part of the curriculum, and rightly so, because it will affect everything that you do in your careers. Some of you have already served in Alaska and aboard icebreakers, and you know the effects. As America’s Maritime Guardian, you’ve pledged to remain always ready — Semper Paratus — ready for all threats. And climate change is one of those most severe threats.

And this is not just a problem for countries on the coasts, or for certain regions of the world. Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I’m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.

Read more:

President Obama may have made other statements which contradict some of his statements on Climate Change – he is after all a politician. But Politifact’s assertion that it is a “mostly false” exaggeration, to say that President Obama thinks Climate Change is the greatest threat to national security, is clearly unreasonable – unless you think that suggesting Climate is the “greatest threat” to future generations, suggesting climate, unlike terrorism, might be an “existential threat” to the entire world, suggesting “we need to act now”, could not reasonably be interpreted as being a suggestion that climate is the nation’s number one priority.

Perhaps next time Politifact could try spending a few minutes searching the internet, before they issue a “fact check” which in my opinion unreasonably smears the integrity of a hero who puts his life on the line every day, to keep America safe from real security threats.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 6, 2016 7:44 am

America’s biggest threat these last eight years has been the president.

Reply to  John
June 6, 2016 3:06 pm

No matter what is said, Obama will lie to make himself look good.

Reply to  Stephen Greene
June 6, 2016 3:38 pm

Lie and get caught out!

Reply to  John
June 7, 2016 10:07 am

“yo, Barry, mah ni**a, you did it”

June 6, 2016 7:45 am

President Obama may have made other statements which contradict….
of course he has…..that’s his claim to fame
…no matter what you believe, if you listen long enough you will hear him say it

Reply to  Latitude
June 6, 2016 12:22 pm

Latitude June 6, 2016 at 7:45 am
“President Obama may have made other statements which contradict….
of course he has…..that’s his claim to fame
…no matter what you believe, if you listen long enough you will hear him say it.”
Trump seems to have decided he will use this strategy at every opportunity.

Reply to  Simon
June 6, 2016 6:33 pm

Trump wll never be better at lying than Hiillary. She now has decades of experience.

Reply to  Simon
June 6, 2016 10:25 pm

“Jtom June 6, 2016 at 6:33 pm
Trump will never be better at lying than Hiilary. She now has decades of experience.”
Well he’s doing his best to catch up.

Reply to  Simon
June 6, 2016 10:46 pm

Typical Simon misdirection.
Bringing up Trump as if somehow saying “well your guy is a liar too” somehow justifies a sitting president being such a gargantuan fail and colossal, world-class liar? {If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, Simon. If you like you coverage, you can keep your coverage, Simon.}
Plenty more where that came from, Simon.

Reply to  Simon
June 7, 2016 2:45 am

Boulder Skeptic
If you think Obama is more economic with the truth than other presidents then I say that’s nonsense. All politicians have their own truth, it is just Trump has a different truth for every day of the week. And I can’t think of a presidential nominee who at this stage of a campaign has a list of untruths as long as commie Donald.

Reply to  Simon
June 7, 2016 6:58 am

Sorry Simon – the tired old “everyone does it” excuse does not cut it any more. The issue is not some dead guy on a currency denomination. It is about the “sitting” liar and the fact that the MSM is trying to cover his lies with their own.

Reply to  Simon
June 7, 2016 3:44 am

And now we get the mind reading. Nice try now at trying to argue something you think I might be thinking. I don’t own Trump and may or may not be a Trump supporter. Didn’t actually write anything about that, did I? Try quoting something I actually wrote and telling me how you disagree. You’re holding true to your pattern here with misdirection and strawmen.
Your misdirection is typical. This post isn’t about Trump or other Presidents. It’s about President Obama and what a colossal liar he has been–especially with respect to the importance of climate change. And also it’s about how Politifact is just another liberal fail that gives mostly Demoncrats cover by convincing the sheeple and tools (are you one?) to believe things that just aren’t true.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Simon
June 7, 2016 8:12 am

Simon, every one of the thousands of Top Secret, Classified, etc. E-mails that were received or uploaded to Hillary Clinton’s private in-home Server …… constitutes a damnable lie voiced by Hillary.
But the big question is NOT how many Top Secret E-mails were received or uploaded to Hillary Clinton’s private in-home Server, ……. but how many E-mails were transmitted from Hillary Clinton’s private in-home Server to IP addresses in foreign countries that no one but Hillary and/or Bill knows what their content/context was.

Reply to  Simon
June 7, 2016 12:09 pm

Boulder Skeptic
I’m no huge fan of Clinton, but I can’t imagine in a lifetime voting for a candidate who plays the racist card to wriggle out of a fraud case (Commie Donald). It is difficult to imagine a lower dirtier comment from the scummiest person you might work with, let alone the next potential president. It is just all beyond belief.

Reply to  Simon
June 9, 2016 12:32 pm

Simon — the GOP deserves Donald for buying into the moderin fetishization of democracy. The Founders were so cautious of democracy the first thing they did was fill the Constitution with amendments denying Congress’ powers to do all sorts of things the voters might ask for.
There was no reason they couldn’t have administered a simple civics test in party primaries that would eliminate many of the low-information voters, or at least a modestly corrupt insider “superdelegate” scheme like the Democrats use. Instead they patted themselves on the back for being progressive, and they reaped a populist.

Reply to  Latitude
June 6, 2016 2:18 pm

“Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
~ George Orwell

Reply to  markstoval
June 6, 2016 3:21 pm

Maybe the “m” word sent you to moderation? Or perhaps the system is designed to send random posts to moderation, just to keep the moderators on their toes.
Or is that on our toes? Enquiring minds want to know.

Reply to  markstoval
June 6, 2016 3:22 pm

My post responding to your missing post also died and went to moderator heaven.

Reply to  Latitude
June 6, 2016 2:22 pm

Oh for God’s Sake. I quoted George Orwell and the post went to never never land. Now What.
Perhaps this will work.

Reply to  Latitude
June 7, 2016 11:59 am

That’s why I call Obama the “Lyin’ Pres”. He’s been the biggest disappointment ever and has singlehandedly set back black progress more than any other politician. I wonder how he’ll lie out of that claim?

June 6, 2016 7:45 am

PolitiFact simply doesn’t always get the “fact” part right, but they often keep “Politi” in their interpretation.

Reply to  JohnWho
June 6, 2016 8:35 am

These political “fact checkers” are just a manifestation of how far the old media in general fallen. The newspapers and TV news allowed the creation of these so called “fact checkers” because their own credibility is so far in the tank. Here is a FACT: IF the media was actually practicing good journalism there would be no place for “fact checkers”.

Robert Wykoff
Reply to  rah
June 6, 2016 10:13 am

Don’t the “Fact Checkers”, just look at the MSM archive to “confirm” or “deny” a fact?

Bryan A
Reply to  rah
June 6, 2016 10:31 am


Reply to  JohnWho
June 6, 2016 10:06 am

Politi-fabrication. There, fixed it.

Reply to  Gary
June 6, 2016 1:21 pm

I believe their job is “Politi cover-up” since there are so many statements from the progressives that lack factual or scientific basis. Remember how they sold “it depends on the meaning of is” or the definition of sex?
Their job is to cover up progressive lies and consequences and lie about Conservative ideas.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  JohnWho
June 6, 2016 10:29 am


Reply to  JohnWho
June 6, 2016 12:10 pm

It’s the nu style, simply put key words in your name, i.e. “fact” “skeptical”, and hope no one around is smart enough to catch on that you are completely the opposite of that. It’s psychological projection meets marketing.

Reply to  RWturner
June 7, 2016 12:01 pm

Obama once was a prominent member of the New Party, which also wasn’t a stellar point in his political career.

William Yarber
Reply to  JohnWho
June 7, 2016 12:11 pm

PolitiFact almost NEVER get it right when verifying Conservative comments! Totally biased and untrustworthy!

Mark from the Midwest
June 6, 2016 7:46 am

And that would surprise anybody?

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 6, 2016 11:21 am

I have no sympathy on people who want waterboarding when threatened by undemocratic forces.
If you can’t save democracy with democratic means, you have just lost already.

Reply to  Hugs
June 6, 2016 11:41 am

If war was fought democratically, they would be short, and the generals would die first.

Reply to  Hugs
June 6, 2016 12:18 pm

“I have no sympathy on people who want waterboarding…”
Would beheading be cool?

Reply to  Hugs
June 6, 2016 1:12 pm

Obama has a much better solution…just kill them with a drone strike.
In what Universe it is a better solution is the question now.

Reply to  Hugs
June 6, 2016 1:16 pm

US Special Forces and others attending SERE Level C (Formerly level III) training were being water boarded long before probably anyone here ever heard of it. Also sleep and sensory deprivation. But forgive us for doing something to the enemy that we have done to our own trainees?

Reply to  Hugs
June 6, 2016 1:29 pm

I have no sympathy for those who mistakenly believe we can end Islamic terrorism with “hugs” or giving Iran a Nuclear Missile based on Lies from the State Department and revising records to hid the lies and then claiming they cannot find who ordered the deletions.
BTW US solders have been waterboarded as part of their training and we would have never found Osama without waterboarding despite the false claims from the government.

Michael 2
Reply to  Hugs
June 6, 2016 1:58 pm

Hugs “If you can’t save democracy with democratic means, you have just lost already.”
I am occasionally dismayed when I realize that I gave 20 years of my life in uniform for pacifists.
Creating democracy requires blood, or so it seems. Even Sir Thomas More’ in “Utopia” recognized that war comes to your doorstep but maybe you’ll go to your enemy first.
Benjamin Franklin (1706–90). QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it.”.
The enemies of the United States thinks elections are just plain silly. So do some German warmists. So if you like democracy, be prepared to be undemocratic to keep it.

Reply to  Hugs
June 6, 2016 3:24 pm

Did we use “democratic means” to defeat Hitler?
Those who think that we can play nice with people who aren’t nice, are fools waiting to be beheaded when it’s their turn.

Reply to  Hugs
June 6, 2016 3:34 pm

Hugs, have you ever heard of World War II?
Do you know anything about who did what, and why, and when during that war?
About what were the possible outcomes besides the one which actually occurred?
Are you a serious person?
Are you out of grade school yet?

Reply to  Hugs
June 6, 2016 8:14 pm

Hugs.. I’d point you to the phrase ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’ . and that most democratic of countries, Switzerland, a heavily armed country that happily shot down any plane that passed through their airspace in WWII. I am totally on board with passive behavior, but anyone who thinks aggression should be met with peace is in for a big shock at some point – you have a responsibility to protect your own life and shirking it is foolish. Even cows, the most passive of herbivores have a decent set of horns for good reason.

Tim Hammond
Reply to  Hugs
June 7, 2016 2:29 am

I agree with hugs, though I’m not sure I would use “democracy” but rather our values and freedoms.
Lots of what was done in WWII by the Allies was unnecessary and simply wrong, There was no need to do away with so many of our rights, and for us to engage in some acts to win.
And for Michael 2 (and others), that doesn’t make me a pacifist. I accept that war is sometimes necessary, and that involves killing people. I accept that terrorists want to kill me and that we should fight them. But that doesn’t mean that i accept continual surveillance of everything I do, or torture of suspects, or the suspension of habeus corpus.
Are we fighting simply to not be killed, or to defend rights and values and principles which we think are worth fighting for?

Roger Bournival
June 6, 2016 7:46 am

They should change their name to PolitiHack – much more accurate.

Reply to  Roger Bournival
June 6, 2016 11:22 am

Or just ‘communists’, that probably would do.

June 6, 2016 7:48 am

Honestly the behavioral and social sciences desire for reengineering people and institutions relies heavily on a concept they want to use but not disclose called internalized Guiding Fictions. When I read about its use all the CAGW hype immediately came to mind. This explains with cites its planned use in K-12 education all over the world , but the principle is the same when it is the media or supposed fact checkers determined to falsely frame an issue.
All of these manipulative techniques do poorly in the disinfectant of disclosure. Might as well accurately frame what Politifact was really trying to do.

June 6, 2016 7:52 am

you can’t really blame this poor guy. he is just reading the teleprompter. it’s when the teleprompter goes down that you get to see the person who is the president of the united states of america.

Reply to  chaamjamal
June 6, 2016 8:01 am

….He is useless without his teleprompters !

Reply to  Marcus
June 6, 2016 8:08 am

Are you just guessing that that was not what was on the teleprompter, or do you have inside information?

Reply to  Marcus
June 6, 2016 8:25 am

In some circles he’s known as TOTUS.
Teleprompter of The United States

Bryan A
Reply to  Marcus
June 6, 2016 10:34 am

June 6, 2016 at 8:01 am
….He is useless without his teleprompters !
He is useless WITH his teleprompters

Reply to  chaamjamal
June 6, 2016 8:07 am

Wha, wha, wha, what did he, he, he, he, say?

Reply to  chaamjamal
June 7, 2016 12:05 pm

Obama is a stuttering idiot without his teleprompter. If he ever looses his sight, he’ll be all washed up.

Tom Halla
June 6, 2016 7:55 am

Politi-Fact is notoriously leftist, and tends to enforce the orthodoxy with its ratings. Obama did say what the sheriff was quoting, and no amount of spin enables anyone to deny that.

Richard Howes
June 6, 2016 8:07 am

I would assert that itt is mostly true that climate change is a very serious threat. If a comet were to hit Earth, as has happened repeatedly over the course of human inhabitation of this planet, the climate could change so drastically as to wipe out most if not all of us. Much evidence supports the fact that many large animals, and most of humankind, died out in the disasters at the end of the last ice age. What is entirely false is the assertion that man made increases to CO2 is a very serious threat. So if you take it on it’s face value, Obama’s claim that “No threat poses a greater threat than climate change” is actually on the money.

Reply to  Richard Howes
June 6, 2016 8:11 am

However, when Obama/Alarmists use the term “Climate Change”, they mean “climate change caused by human CO2 emissions”, so with that understanding, Obama is not correct.

Reply to  JohnWho
June 6, 2016 8:49 am

JohnWho is a smart man

Javert Chip
Reply to  Richard Howes
June 6, 2016 9:35 am

With all due respect, your got your cause and effect mixed up.
Your example is “earth being hit by a comet”, not “climate change”.
You could also call it “death by lots of hot stuff” or “death by tsunami” or, if you’re REALLY unlucky, “death by crushing”.

Richard Howes
Reply to  Javert Chip
June 6, 2016 12:32 pm

There are scientists that believe that many deaths were due to the climate change caused by the comet, not the blast itself or resulting tsunami events.

Reply to  Richard Howes
June 6, 2016 9:41 am

I’d have to disagree with you there. Even using existing technology, it’s feasible to detect, intercept, and divert or destroy an incoming celestial body. Nothing we can do will significantly alter the climate.

Michael 2
Reply to  TomB
June 6, 2016 2:02 pm

The Chelyabinsk meteor was not detected until it exploded in the sky. Had it struck directly it would have been a spectacular disaster second only to the Tunguska blast.

Reply to  TomB
June 6, 2016 3:37 pm

Only if Bruce Willis can squeeze a drilling rig and seventeen people onto a space shuttle.

June 6, 2016 8:18 am

“which in my opinion unreasonably smears the integrity of a hero who puts his life on the line every day, to keep America safe from real security threats.”×300.jpg

Reply to  BFL
June 6, 2016 9:29 am

Reply to  bazzer1959
June 6, 2016 12:55 pm

Poor Jeremy Paxman. He really didn’t have a chance.
Arbeegee, Darwinian

Reply to  bazzer1959
June 7, 2016 12:15 pm

Talk about a knock-down, drag out!
It has been said that Liberalism is a disease, and this Jeremy Paxman adequately demonstrates it.
In this contest, it’s Coulter: 100; Paxman: 0.

Reply to  bazzer1959
June 8, 2016 7:25 am

Wow- thanks for the video. Coulter is always entertainingly lucid. Paxman demonstrates beautifully the typical LW nut whose view of reality never ventures from the absurd media matters constructs and strawmen and whose behavior frequently exhibits projection of their claims…

Reply to  bazzer1959
June 8, 2016 1:44 pm

Paxman often used the ‘You’re an idiot’ approach to his interviews, which sometimes worked and sometimes just made him look like a pompous twat. He used to be on a news programme here called Newsnight. He’s retired now, and no one misses him. We do have an excellent interviewer called Andrew Neil. Always does his homework, and pounces if the interviewee waffles or doesn’t answer the question.

June 6, 2016 8:20 am

Greenpeace, “Fix Democracy Pledge”
List of congressional candidates including those who signed the “Pledge”
Note Oregon.

Reply to  Barbara
June 6, 2016 11:16 am

Climate Progress, May 23, 2016
‘Portland Bans Climate-Denying Textbooks From Its Schools’
“The resolution, which was created by the Portland Chapter of and other community members, …” has a direct connection to Greenpeace.

June 6, 2016 8:22 am

I hope Sheriff Paul Babeu wins his election. He looks like one of the good guys to me.
Obama has certainly hyped the threat of CAGW to a national security and world survival issue, as was proven by this article.
People should quit expecting to get the truth out of Leftwing news media organizations. It’s not going to happen. All you are going to get is the Leftist spin 24/7. It’s what they do.

Reply to  TA
June 6, 2016 11:52 am

“quit expecting to get the truth out of Leftwing news media organization”
This last year has been good for that with major distortions being pointed out with NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, Couric and others. Even found out why the NYT “converted” because Carlos Slim saved them from going under:

June 6, 2016 8:24 am

During the last two election cycles, PolitiFact revealed itself to be little more than a left wing propaganda site.
They routinely give passes to whoppers told by Democrats, while labeling as false, perfectly reasonable statements by Republicans.
Such as the one above.

June 6, 2016 8:33 am

Poltifact is one of the worst partisan outfits. But this is another example that is easy to point to when someone gets on their horse about their “objectivity”

June 6, 2016 8:36 am

They use similar tactics at the podium.

June 6, 2016 8:39 am

Motoring of the future is here
Ausie professor at the University of Melbourne, Richard O’Hair has designed a car powered by ants!
He used a molecular catalyst that forces formic acid to produce only hydrogen and carbon dioxide and at a low temperature of only 70°C.

Reply to  vukcevic
June 6, 2016 9:23 am

“”With formic acid, the aim was to transform it into hydrogen and carbon dioxide, which could really lend itself to the important practical applications of hydrogen energy in the transport sector.”
While the study successfully produces hydrogen and CO2, the ultimate aim of future research will be to ensure any derivative source of hydrogen produces zero emissions.”
…..What, I thought CO2 was the worst pollution on Earth !!

Reply to  vukcevic
June 6, 2016 9:26 am

Never mind ants, what’s happened about the zinc/air battery?

Reply to  vukcevic
June 6, 2016 9:00 pm

what odd people these are. Formic acid has a carbon to hydrogen ratio of 1:2 and is a little worrying stored in bulk as it self decomposes to carbon monoxide. If the goal is a ‘hydrogen’ based fuel system we already have a damned fine one with hydrocarbon gasses without the complexity of requiring catalysts, in fact the most sensible of hydrogen fuels is not pure hydrogen with the many dangers and complications of storage and transport, but one with a high number of hydrogen atoms bonded to another harmless element – and there’s plenty to choose from.
butane is 1: 2 1/2
propane is 1: 2 2/3
ethane is 1:3
methane is 1:4
A shame the enviro-friendly gang green didn’t study any chemistry or they’d realize fixating on carbon was a bit goofy and these are actually hydrogen fuels and not carbon fuels.
personally as someone who studied botany and understands the carbon cycle, I’d like to see a little more CO2 in the air, but what would I know.. I’m not a climate ‘scientist’.

June 6, 2016 8:43 am

“ISIS is not an existential threat to the United States.”
Especially when funding it…

Reply to  TomRude
June 6, 2016 9:25 am

That’s a national secret, and you could be violating some Federal law…or something. Next you’re going to tell me that the US’s close friends, the Saudi Arabians are mixed up in stuff, or that the FBI knew about the Oklahoma bombing days and weeks before, or that the CIA were mixed up in the murder of Lord Mountbatten in Northern Ireland. Fancy that, the closest of the friends of the UK killing a member of the Royal Family. No, surely not?

Reply to  bazzer1959
June 6, 2016 9:57 am

‘northern Ireland, not Northern Ireland. Us brits know the difference.

Reply to  bazzer1959
June 6, 2016 11:59 am

“that the FBI knew about the Oklahoma bombing days and weeks before”
Well for what it’s worth there were no agents in the building during the bombing, they had wanted a new building (and got it) and supposedly there were numerous warning calls placed to a local answering service and relayed to them but no interviews or action taken…..

June 6, 2016 8:44 am

Executive orders have no limits. Just ask DOJ, they researched it ahead of time and proclaimed the outcome.

June 6, 2016 8:52 am

Why are they backing away? If you like your lies, Mr. President, you should keep your lies!

Reply to  roaldjlarsen
June 7, 2016 9:54 pm

Oh, he does: His is the most fact-distorted presidency in history.

June 6, 2016 9:20 am

Shame, really, that America’s first black President should be such a gimp. I guess Cassius Clay would never have been President, given his religion, and we all know why Tiger Woods didn’t. Black people may have to wait a long time now.

Reply to  bazzer1959
June 7, 2016 12:22 pm

I can list half a dozen non-Marxist/communist blacks that would make great presidents. Obama has proven MLK correct–it is content of character and not color of skin that really matters.

Reply to  RockyRoad
June 8, 2016 12:18 am

But I’m afraid that, for a lot of black people, that isn’t so. They will vote for a black man. Racism isn’t all on way, by a long chalk. There are a lot of white people who wouldn’t vote for Obama because he’s black, but as I said, there were a lot of black people who voted for Obama BECAUSE he’s black. It is 100% character, and never colour, that determines a good leader. Black people in America need a much better champion than this incompetent, and I’m afraid they may have to wait a long, long time.

June 6, 2016 9:23 am

it wasn’t just Obama, but several members of his administration – including Secretary of State (for God’s sake), John Kerry. In fact, I daresay, Climate Change is right near the top of his agenda list.

June 6, 2016 9:32 am

Just to clarify — none of those statements of Obama’s is the same as the reference by Babeu and used by Politifact.
“Babeu said, “The president has said the national security threat facing America, the top one, is global warming.” ”
He calls it “a significant threat to global security and an immediate risk to our national security (not the top threat — just one of many); he says, “No threat poses a greater challenge than climate change.” (A challenge is not a threat — politically it probably is among the greatest challenges); and he calls it, “a potential existential threat,” which is nowhere close to the top national security threat.
In other words, based on these quotes Babeu is exaggerating and Politifact is right. That being said, I would have preferred a “mostly true” rating.
However, immigration is also nowhere near the greatest national security threat. I could think of dozens of greater threats from North Korea, Putin, internal militias, ISIS, and the budget deficit.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
June 6, 2016 9:48 am

..Quote from the video above..”No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”…..It’s amazing how some people can twist reality into what they WANT to see and hear…

Reply to  lorcanbonda
June 6, 2016 9:52 am

Seriously? Your defense is asking what the meaning of “is” is? Whether you call it a “challenge” or a “threat” may make hay within your echo chamber and law school students arguing semantics, in the court of public opinion you’re just plain wrong. “Internal militias” are a top threat? Really? Again, not even a blip on the radar except in your sycophantic circle of naysayers. Though, in light of the violent left’s assaults of Trump supporters, the rapes, murders, and muggings left in the wake of multiple OWS protests, etc.; you may have a small point.

Reply to  TomB
June 6, 2016 10:48 am

People with guns, who don’t work for the government, scare leftists.

stan stendera
Reply to  lorcanbonda
June 6, 2016 9:56 am

Quick, look, a leftist unicorn.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
June 6, 2016 9:57 am

Iorcanbonda….Are you the sort or guy who would hang a jury because the defendant’s finger print was not on the murder weapon and that is not proof beyond “all” doubt?

Reply to  fossilsage
June 6, 2016 3:27 pm

Rumor mill has it that OJ is going to confess to the murders.
If he does that, I wonder how those on the jury, who completely ignored the evidence, will feel?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  lorcanbonda
June 6, 2016 10:47 am

In context, “threat” and “challenge” is a distinction without a difference. Based on funding priorities, Babeu is certainly correct.
Border Security: $4.5 billion
Climate Change: $11.6 billion

June 6, 2016 9:49 am

Curse that Internet. I bet Al Gore wishes he’s never invented it. (/sarc)

June 6, 2016 10:01 am

Politifact is nothing more than a cryptoliberal site that attempts to portray conservatives as liars. When confronted, it will sometimes report that one of its favorite candidates had mispoke or said something that was “mostly” false. And then massage that until it appears to be almost true.

John Robertson
June 6, 2016 10:34 am

polifact is just another manifestation of the progressives corruption.
Corruption of our language is one of their first tools.
Such as “The Science”
The term Liberal is now so debased that only socialists qualify.
Diverting discussions into, the meaning of “Is” is normal politics for these parasites.
Always follow the money, usually the most dishonest and clueless are siphoning off taxpayers money somewhere along their food chain.

June 6, 2016 10:36 am

You know reading through these comments, it appears that people think that Obama is deluded. He isn’t of course, it’s just that he knows his supporters will lap it up because of the proposed solution.

Reply to  Sparky
June 6, 2016 10:49 am

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.

June 6, 2016 10:38 am

More propaganda from the “Ministry of Information.”
I’d sooner believe Pravda.

June 6, 2016 10:42 am

The caption says: “I just want you to know I’m throwing the full force of the US military behind stopping the horror of this rising sea level.”
Well, as it turns out, the US military does think that AGW represents a grave threat – and they came to this conclusion during the Bush administration, which was headed by AGW skeptics. So the conclusion of the Pentagon can’t be blamed on Obama’s influence.

Reply to  Chris
June 6, 2016 10:51 am

Yet another lie.
Yes the military did scope out a scenario dealing with rising seas.
They also scoped out invasions coming from Canada and or Puerto Rico.
Looking to the future and asking what if, then scoping out what they would do in response is what the military does during peace times.
The fact that the military spent time figuring what to do if the seas rise, is not evidence that there is anyone in the military who thinks it will happen, or that it’s a serious problem.
Too bad leftists know so little about how the military (or anything else in the world for that matter) works.

Reply to  Chris
June 6, 2016 11:23 am

..Imagine that, a liberal bringing up G.W. ……
[this comment adds nothing to the conversation – Anthony]

Reply to  Chris
June 6, 2016 11:34 am

I’m always amused when Progressives try to cite ‘the Bush Administration’ – as if that’s a selling point.
I guess as a skeptic, I must also be a Bush worshiper – he who, until the days of Obama, was the greatest enabler of Big Green.
Narrow-minded world-views tend to produce this sort of projection.

Reply to  Chris
June 6, 2016 11:38 am

Additionally, just because the Bush administration had some CAGW skeptics in the upper reaches of the administration, is not evidence that everyone who worked in government at the time was also a skeptic.
99+% of the people who work in government remain when administrations change.

Reply to  MarkW
June 7, 2016 5:14 am

“Additionally, just because the Bush administration had some CAGW skeptics in the upper reaches of the administration, is not evidence that everyone who worked in government at the time was also a skeptic.”
My point is that these conclusions were arrived at under an administration that was clearly skeptical on CAGW, and so there is no chance that the administration influenced the outcome of the study.

Reply to  MarkW
June 7, 2016 8:35 am

‘My point is that these conclusions were arrived at under an administration that was clearly skeptical on CAGW, and so there is no chance that the administration influenced the outcome of the study.’
A large portion of the chicanery revealed in Climategate happened during the Bush years, whether he was behind it or not. The institutions that were pushing AGW were trumping up their data specifically to pitch it to so-called ‘skeptics’ attached to Bush (and nothing has suggested to me that the Bush family has any problem at all with AGW theory or legislation). And of course, W pretty much gave them the farm.
Of course, the current administration has taken a much more proactive approach.

Reply to  MarkW
June 7, 2016 9:37 am

“A large portion of the chicanery revealed in Climategate happened during the Bush years, whether he was behind it or not.”
Specifically what chicanery?

Reply to  MarkW
June 7, 2016 12:00 pm

‘Specifically what chicanery?’
And then with an official whitewash document attached?
Dear Lord.

Reply to  MarkW
June 8, 2016 12:17 am

“Specifically what chicanery?’
And then with an official whitewash document attached?
Dear Lord.”
So no refutation of the specific points the review committee outlined in reaching their conclusions? Which were the same as 5 other reviews, by the way. My bad, I forgot the global conspiracy reason.

Reply to  MarkW
June 8, 2016 5:35 am

Chris, you are just as bad as the morons who turn off their brains and stop thinking when it comes to truth o meters
because the emails themselves prove that conclusion to be a lie.
Either none of you has bothered to even read the emails or you are a bunch of liars. Either way, no cookie for you

Reply to  MarkW
June 9, 2016 2:31 am

Benfromno, got it, the world should take your words over that of 5 independent studies.

Reply to  Chris
June 6, 2016 3:21 pm

The military and the CIA said exactly the same sorts of things about global cooling back in the 1970s.
They do scenarios…that is what they do.
They do not wait for something to happen to think about what might then occur as a result, or what sort of response might be needed.
And because they have contingency plans for an event has no bearing on the likelihood of that event occurring.
If crops failed all over the world, things would get chaotic, and wars would likely result. That is all one needs to know for the Pentagon to have a detailed plan.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Menicholas
June 6, 2016 3:41 pm

Reminds me the original War Games movie. The computer, WOPER, was designed to simulate war scenarios that might lead to “Global Thermonuclear War”. The problem was that the computer was given control of the US’s nuclear response.
Our problem is that Climate Models have people willing to “push the button” leading to “Global Thermopolical Poor”.
In the movie the threat wasn’t real. In reality the threat isn’t real.

Reply to  Menicholas
June 6, 2016 9:02 pm

Gunga Din
What is truly scary is that in NATO war games in the late 60’s/early 70’s, it became clear that if the Russians were overrunning Europe, US generals would go nuclear. The result was that additional safeguards were needed in real life to prevent an accident. On both sides of the iron curtain.

Reply to  Chris
June 7, 2016 5:11 am

“Yet another lie…..The fact that the military spent time figuring what to do if the seas rise, is not evidence that there is anyone in the military who thinks it will happen, or that it’s a serious problem.”
It’s a pity you didn’t read the article. I quote: “The Army’s former chief of staff, Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, who is one of the authors, noted he had been “a little bit of a skeptic” when the study group began meeting in September. But, after being briefed by top climate scientists and observing changes in his native New England, Sullivan said he was now convinced that global warming presents a grave challenge to the country’s military preparedness.” That’s not a what if scenario, not a War College planning scenario.
And as to the contention often voiced by skeptics that we do not have consensus on whether substantial AGW is occurring: “The trends are not good, and if I just sat around in my former life as a soldier, if I just waited around for someone to walk in and say, ‘This is with a hundred percent certainty,’ I’d be waiting forever,” he said.”

Reply to  Chris
June 7, 2016 12:25 pm

Yes, he was briefed by hand-picked alarmist scientists provided by government to provide him with just that conclusion.
Don’t be obtuse.

Reply to  Chris
June 9, 2016 2:35 am

Don’t insult his intelligence with a throwaway comment like that. It’s laughable to think that a stern commander with 37 years of military service is going go “um, ok, whatever you say” to some scientists. Second, how do you know they were cherry picked? Bush II was a skeptic, his chief science adviser was a skeptic, Cheney sure is. So any scientists in the Bush administration who believe that CAGW is real are far below the senior administration levels. Yet they somehow asserted themselves and put themselves in front of this guy to convince him. Right. Lastly, he mentioned his own observations of what is happening in the part of the US he comes from. That has nothing to do with scientists.

Alan Robertson
June 6, 2016 11:10 am

From the article:
Perhaps next time Politifact could try spending a few minutes searching the internet, before they issue a “fact check”…
With past as prologue, it is a certainty that Politifact knew the truth, but published a lie which they sold as truth, all done in support of their agenda.
Politifact wears the politburo’s hat.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 6, 2016 11:27 am

..Hmmm, does that mean they can be charged under the R.I.C.O. Laws ?? After all, they lied to attract more customers…

Reply to  Marcus
June 6, 2016 11:39 am

No, that’s only against the law when you are doing something the government disagrees with.

June 6, 2016 11:39 am

Two for one!
Whats the chance first the war loving neocons under George Bush invading Iraq under the most flimsy of evidence and then setting up shop in Afghanistan (Nobody has ever invaded and subjugated Afghanistan) The net result a middle east that is a constant time bomb that keeps exploding. A nice cheap war!!
Then Obama the lost for words teleprompter socialist die hard, who has that magic touch of screwing up every thing he touches. a retreat that leads to ISIS- Another nice cheap retreat!! What could go wrong????
The middle east is in flames, Northern Africa is a terrorist hell hole. The Economy is shattered. The EU is rapidly becoming D O A – In the words of a realist looking around the world – what a cluster F***
I feel relieved that Climate change if the most dangerous thing facing the World – Obama still has time to stop the oceans from rising!
Obama’s at his most eloquent.
I I I I I IF IF IF IF IF IF Oh what the f, where’s my speechwriter and teleprompter –

Reply to  TG
June 6, 2016 11:41 am

That flimsy evidence was sufficient to get sizeable votes on the war resolution in both houses of congress.
Regardless, both Iraq and Afghanistan were stable and improving when Bush left office.

Reply to  MarkW
June 6, 2016 12:52 pm

Hi Mark.
I am a conservative and I stated at the time the this was a no calorie Shock and Awe war with NO after plan,to stabilize the country after the stupid invasion or protect the people, protect the institutions that keep things running, No police or local army for stability. Bush is and was a wild west show with no 5 or 10 year plan. Seriously he destroyed a country, it’s economic base and disestablished the whole middle east. He vindictively punished the baathist party created massive unemployment, made enemy’s by purged the army/military with no pay or pensions. Set up the circumstances that destroyed the country’s heritage -The cradle of civilization ie: museums sacked and ransacked. It was a 5 minute war with no forethought about the repercussion for Iraq, the region or the western world and we are and will continue to pay the price!!
And Obama has only served to make things worse – two dud presidents one after another – just beautiful!

Reply to  MarkW
June 6, 2016 3:30 pm

There was a plan to stabilize the country after the invasion.
It didn’t work.
So they went with a different plan that did work.
Bush was no angel, but there is no need to lie about his record.

June 6, 2016 11:42 am

Simple logic. Obama has indicated different threat worries at different times; he has stated that the greatest threat to security is: X; Y; Z; & Climate Change.
Therefore when someone points out that the president thinks that “global warming is the biggest security threat” they can’t help being mostly wrong.
So, Politifact should also acknowledge that Obama through his political double talk, is mostly wrong on everything he has said as well.
AND the Politifact statement “Obama has said fighting terrorism is his most urgent priority” is not incorrect, because he has said/indicated such, but that doesn’t make the statement TRUE. Politifact ignores important context, that Obama and his political allies put border security below climate change (global warming, or whatever) with respect to allocation of resources and security importance.

Gary Pearse
June 6, 2016 11:53 am

Well Pollyflack did indeed get it right. Unlike climate change which dooms everyone, ISIS is only harmful toward nonbelievers. See the difference?/sarc

June 6, 2016 12:28 pm
Not only 10 seconds in and it can be deemed that politifact is in fact politifalse.
Also from his 2015 SotUA:
“No challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” Mr. Obama

June 6, 2016 12:53 pm

Politifact more like!
There, fixed it.
Seriously, does anybody take these bozos seriously?

Reply to  Paul Homewood
June 6, 2016 3:29 pm

Sadly and unfortunately Paul, the answer is yes, a lot of people do.
Which is a huge problem.

June 6, 2016 2:18 pm

Additional evidence Politifact is mostly wrong comes from Obama’s top foreign policy official, Secy. of State Kerry, who stated in a major speech in Indonesia: “And in a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

Ron Clutz
June 6, 2016 2:33 pm

POTUS is right. Radical environmentalism is already eroding the foundations of modern civilization.

Gunga Din
June 6, 2016 3:13 pm

I wonder. Is Candy Crowley the head of Politifact?

June 6, 2016 3:20 pm

Politifact is mostly a partisan business. The traditional rule of multiple, independent sources is still in force.

Jim G1
June 6, 2016 6:37 pm

Obama is one of those folks who could blow out a road flare. Of course he may need a teleprompter and two hours of excruciatingly boring self praise to do it, but do it he can.

June 7, 2016 5:18 am

Politifact is better called PolitiOpinion.
Obama has been maybe the greatest politician at saying what anyone wants to hear. He cannot only speak out of both sides of his mouth at once but can come up with variations from the middle of his mouth.
So to sum up Obama’s view; global warming is the greatest threat, but not really.

June 7, 2016 6:33 am

For sure Obama has used hyperbole on this issue, but Politifact is correct. Hyperbole from one side does not justify twisting that hyperbole into language the political opposition wishes he had said.

Reply to  DonJindra
June 7, 2016 6:45 am

If Obama used hyperbole, then by definition Politifact is wrong.

June 7, 2016 9:50 am

The big black guy from the cartoon has been captured. So the risk from the rising sea level, no matter how small, is greater than the risk from him right now.

June 7, 2016 11:09 am

Biden looks like Walter of Jeff Dunham’s Comedy Central show….

June 7, 2016 12:08 pm

WUWT rates Politifact’s “mostly false” assessment of Paul Babeu’s remarks to be “mostly false”.

June 8, 2016 12:48 am

President Obama’s top priority changes depending on which way the wind is blowing or what is in the news at the time. Sometimes he even contradicts himself so he can later point to one and say, “see I told you so.” He did that with the stimulus. First, he said we would begin to see the positive effects of the stimulus immediately, and then later in the same speech he said it would take a lot of time for the stimulus to work. When few benefits from stimulus spending were seen, Obama pointed to the second statement in his speech as proof he had always said it would take a long time to see the positive effects. Making contradictory statements gives him an out in case the rosier scenario doesn’t materialize.
Here’s a partial list of President Obama’s top priorities over the years:
– Senator Obama told Planned Parenthood that their top concern would be his top priority when he became President: “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”
– In 2010 he told La Raza, “My number-one priority, every single day, is to figure out how we can get businesses to hire and create jobs with decent wages.”
– In 2010 he told NASA administrator Charles Bolden that his highest priority should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.”
– In 2012 he said, “For the first time ever, we’ve made military families and veterans a top priority not just at DOD, not just at the VA, but across the government.” (BTW, that was before the VA scandal came to light.)
– On Feb 9, 2015 Obama told Vox editor Ezra Klein that his push for more immigration was his top legislative priority over the last two years, but was defeated by public protests.
– On Nov 16, 2015, Obama talked about the Paris attacks and then said, “And as President, my first priority is the safety of the American people.”
– On Nov 22, 2015 he said that it would be cynical for him to say that “my priority is ISIL and not removing Assad.”
– On Dec 5, 2015, after the San Bernardino shootings, he again says, “As President, my highest priority is the security and safety of the American people.”
– On Feb 7, 2016 the President has the Pentagon order commanders to prioritize climate change in all military actions.
– On March 11, 2016 he says that he is more worried about climate change than ISIL.
– On March 16, 2016 Obama’s final budget makes climate change the top priority.
– On March 23, 2016, after the attack in Brussels, Obama said, “I’ve got a lot of things on my plate. But my top priority is to defeat ISIL…”
Notice how President Obama’s top priority keeps shifting around depending on who he’s talking to and what’s currently in the news.

Not Chicken Little
June 8, 2016 7:20 am

One must never forget, for the left the most important and most used tool is the lie. Why? Because it works, eventually, bit by bit, to advance their agenda. Some swallow the lies whole right from the start, others eventually succumb from their repetition.

Verified by MonsterInsights