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.
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: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
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.
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.
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.
When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.
More propaganda from the “Ministry of Information.”
I’d sooner believe Pravda.
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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401209.html
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.
..Imagine that, a liberal bringing up G.W. ……
[this comment adds nothing to the conversation – Anthony]
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.
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.
“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.
‘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.
“A large portion of the chicanery revealed in Climategate happened during the Bush years, whether he was behind it or not.”
Specifically what chicanery? http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
‘Specifically what chicanery?’
And then with an official whitewash document attached?
Dear Lord.
“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.
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
Benfromno, got it, the world should take your words over that of 5 independent studies.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
Yes, he was briefed by hand-picked alarmist scientists provided by government to provide him with just that conclusion.
Don’t be obtuse.
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.
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.
..Hmmm, does that mean they can be charged under the R.I.C.O. Laws ?? After all, they lied to attract more customers…
No, that’s only against the law when you are doing something the government disagrees with.
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 –
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.
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!
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.
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.
Well Pollyflack did indeed get it right. Unlike climate change which dooms everyone, ISIS is only harmful toward nonbelievers. See the difference?/sarc
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-warns-no-greater-threat-climate-change/
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
Politifact?
Politi
factmore like!There, fixed it.
Seriously, does anybody take these bozos seriously?
Sadly and unfortunately Paul, the answer is yes, a lot of people do.
Which is a huge problem.
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.” http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221704.htm
POTUS is right. Radical environmentalism is already eroding the foundations of modern civilization.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/environmentalist-manifesto/
I wonder. Is Candy Crowley the head of Politifact?
Politifact is mostly a partisan business. The traditional rule of multiple, independent sources is still in force.
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.
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.
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.
If Obama used hyperbole, then by definition Politifact is wrong.
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.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3620037/Flattened-Terrifying-20st-ISIS-executioner-dubbed-Bulldozer-captured-Syrian-army-dumped-half-naked-truck.html
Biden looks like Walter of Jeff Dunham’s Comedy Central show….
WUWT rates Politifact’s “mostly false” assessment of Paul Babeu’s remarks to be “mostly false”.
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.
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.