Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Recently the Doomsday Clock got to within 100 seconds to midnight, so if your date has to be home by then, you have a little over a minute to get him or her home before his/her parents get mad!

Seriously, though, we haven’t heard that much about the Doomsday Clock in recent years because it hasn’t really been that relevant since the end of the Cold War. Kinda like NATO with Swiss timing. Although its initial intent was to give us a visual representation of an impending nuclear doomsday, its purpose has expanded to include climate change. In other words, it keeps track of two bombs.

With the furor building over the change to the Doomsday Clock, I think it warrants a closer look at it.

the Doomsday Clock

What the Left thinks it means – a useful tool to reflect how close our world is to irreversible destruction

What it really means – an arbitrary measure of a doomsday that isn’t coming anytime soon

The Doomsday Clock was created in 1947 by Hyman Goldsmith and Martyl Langsdorf to show how close we were to atomic warfare and destruction with midnight being last call for humanity. Since its creation, different people have been responsible for determining when and how much the clock hands change with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist’s Science and Security Board making the current final decision. In 2007, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist included climate change in their determination of how close we were to utter destruction.

I did a bit of reading on who is on the Science and Security Board so you wouldn’t have to, and one thing struck me time and time again: a decent number of these folks have Leftist ties. Ranging from former Obama Administration officials to California Governor Jerry Brown, the Science and Security Board is a virtual Who Cares of scientists and political folks all striving to make it seem like we’re on the verge of destruction. Of course, they consult with their peers in various scientific fields, but they are the ones who make the final decision.

In other words, a self-perpetuating echo chamber that would make Greta Thunberg jealous.

Now, if you’ve read my previous posts on the subject of climate change, you’ll know I think the science is as slanted as a ski jump, so you can guess how I feel about it being added as a criterion of the Doomsday Clock being changed. However, its inclusion at such a late date is telling. Remember how global warming was going to kill us all in the 90s? Yet, the aforementioned brain trust didn’t think it was as serious a problem until 2007, which was when we started seeing how the climate models that all pointed to climate change being a major problem were more buggy than an Amish tailgate party. And it was during the time when global temperatures were cooler than we were being told.

But, hey, science and stuff.

At the end of the day, though, every tick of the Doomsday Clock isn’t based on anything concrete, just feelings. Whoa oh oh, feelings. And it’s not even feelings based on actual data. The last time the Doomsday Clock was changed was in 2018, when it clock read it was two minutes to midnight. (Come to think of it, that would be a great heavy metal song! Wish someone would write it!) The world hasn’t gotten that much more dangerous for a while, but the clock kept moving in spite of the facts on climate change alone.

The more you look into the Doomsday Clock, the more you see the political machinery within it. In their 2012 announcement, the board praised the Arab Spring (which made the world much more dangerous), the Occupy movement (which had nothing to do with either nuclear weapons or climate change, but still managed to leave a lot of trash for others to pick up), and political/social movements in Japan and Russia that still had nothing to do with either of their concerns. The kicker for me was their 2015 announcement speaking glowingly of John Kerry and relying upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their message on climate change. Don’t pat yourself on the back too much, Mr. Kerry, or you might have to apply for another Purple Heart….

As it stands, the Doomsday Clock is driven by ideology more than ideas, which makes it unreliable as a means of telling anything, let alone time, and it should be treated as such. I trust the blinking 12:00 AM on an old VCR more than I trust the Doomsday Clock because there’s at least some practical logic behind how to change the time. Plus, there’s a chance the VCR might still work, so there’s that. As for the Doomsday Clock, it should be sent to the junkyard where it can keep the rats and the rust company.

And the worst part of the Doomsday Clock? It’s not even digital.

Worst. Tour. Ever.


In case you haven’t been keeping track of the flaming bag of dog doo that is the Green New Deal, there’s been a new development! Since the worst rollout since the Obamacare website, there will now be a 15-city tour and 50-state campaign to promote it. And you thought there wasn’t live entertainment anymore…

Although people have caught onto the easy hypocrisy of the tour (as in how they GNDers are going to travel to said cities), I want to focus on a slightly different aspect of it. We’re told the Left loves facts and science and they’re all in when it comes to global climate change. Of course, their actions don’t reflect it, but they talk a good green game.

One of the Leftists heading up this Green New Deal tour is the Socialist Socialite, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As a Millennial, she connects with a lot of people. Her Twitter game, in particular, is quite effective in getting out her messages. Although people are rightly asking her how she plans to travel to the sites of this tour, but they’re missing out on the biggest question.

Why does the Green New Deal need a tour?

I can see the political (and, let’s face it, financial) aspects to holding GND rallies, but the optics are bound to be bad either way. If they show up in fleet of big busses, they look like hypocrites. If they show up in eco-friendly vehicles, they look stupid. It’s a Kobayashi Maru that is hopefully biodegradable or at least can be used as compost. (Kinda like the GND itself if you think about it.)

So, why bring up social media? Because it’s more cost and energy efficient than a tour while reaching a wider group of people. Set up a Google Hangout, do a Facebook Live video, post a video to Twitter or Instagram, and spread your message that way. Granted, in these forums anyone can join (and judging from some of Hillary Clinton’s town hall meetings with carefully chosen “completely random” average people that just so happen to agree with her, this concern might be unfounded), but it would be a smaller carbon footprint and, frankly, more convenient for the target audience and the people who want the Green New Deal to be a thing.

And if it saves just one child from dying due to global climate change, isn’t it worth it?

At Least We Had Paris…


If you were a Leftist or a global climate change cultist…I mean protester, June 1, 2017, was a day that will live in infamy. For everyone else, it was Thursday. President Donald Trump announced we would be pulling out of the Paris Agreement that former President Barack Obama gave a verbal commitment to as a means to combat global climate change. And as you might expect, the Left handled it with their usual sober maturity.

They lost their minds.

Twitter exploded with Leftist rage and dire predictions that would make even the most dystopian writer seem like Dr. Seuss. The air and water will be poisoned! We’re killing the planet! Future generations will suffer! We’re all gonna diiiieeeeeeee!

I’ll take Unnecessary Hyperventilation Over Bullcrap for $200, Alex.

Whenever I want to figure out my position on a controversial subject, I like to see where some people come down because invariably these people will become the center of attention. If there is an issue involving race, I will look for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shawn King, or Rachel Dolezal. If it’s an issue involving homosexuality, I look for Dan Savage or George Takei. Sexism? Look no further than Anita Sarkeesian, Gloria Allred, or Brianna Wu.

Once I identify the issue “lightning rods”, I can figure out my position (usually in opposition because these folks tend to be denser than a gold covered block of granite). It’s a short cut, I grant you, but it does at least give me a framework by which to build. From there, it’s a matter of sifting through the available information and thinking through the issue.

When it comes to the Paris Agreement, the issue is pretty cut and dried. Under the terms of the agreement, we would be paying billions of dollars to fight climate change while allowing countries that pollute more, like China, to let us pick up the tab for their clean-up efforts. And really who but the evilest climate change deniers would object to that? (Well, people like me who understand we can’t afford to spend money we don’t have to fight a problem we can’t even be sure is happening or that we can affect one way or the other, for starters.)

The people caterwauling about the climate agreement need to take a step back and look at some of the details of the agreement. For one, it’s non-binding. That means there really isn’t any enforcement mechanism, aside from having the world try to shame non-signatories into compliance. Normally, this tactic might work on us, but with Donald Trump at the helm, it’s about as likely to work as Kathy Griffin after this week.

Another element of the agreement is it allows current big polluters like China and India to keep doing what they’re doing. What’s more, they will both be increasing the number of coal plants they’re building. And I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say they may not be the clean coal plants we have here in America, meaning these coal plants will create more pollution, thus negating the very reason the Paris Agreement was even introduced. Brilliant!

The biggest stumbling block for the eco-Left is the fact President Obama didn’t go through the proper channels to bind us to the Paris Agreement. The Constitution states any treaties (and I presume agreements like this one) must go to the Senate to be ratified. Obama decided to go it alone and say we would agree to the Paris Agreement. Yeah, that’s not quite good enough. Funny that a Constitutional lawyer/scholar like Obama forgot about that little part in the Constitution…

Smart Leftists (a paradox, I know, but go with me on this) think there might be a loophole that will prevent Trump from withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, member nations would not be able to request withdrawal until 2019, and would need to wait until 2020 for the withdrawal request to be granted. According to these smart Leftists, that means Trump couldn’t pull out until right around Election Day in 2020. That’s all well and good…until you consider the whole lack of ratification I mentioned earlier. Without the Senate’s approval, any agreement the President makes is worth less than VHS copies of “Glitter.” (If you don’t know the reference, be glad you don’t. Ignorance truly is bliss in this case.)

At the end of the day, the Paris Agreement was a bad deal. It does nothing to prevent pollution, costs rich countries (mostly us) money and jobs, and is as enforceable as a kiss-cam violation. But that doesn’t matter to the Left. They care more about appearing to do something about the environment than actually doing something about it. Even some of the most vocal proponents of manmade global climate change still buy beachfront property while painting a picture of the coastlines getting flooded to the point Omaha becomes our east and west coasts simultaneously.  But after the third or fourth time the dire predictions don’t come true, most people stop listening. (The converse of this is more people listen to Nickelback after their promises to make good music doesn’t come true.)

But you global climate change folks keep doing you. The rest of us will be elsewhere doing something productive. Like listening to Nickelback.

It’s not a Treaty


Thank you President Trump for removing the US out of the Paris Climate Accord. President Obama unlawfully imposed this international agreement on the people of the United States. And now it has been set right.

For those that are unfamiliar with the US Constitution. The Senate must approve all treaties that America is a party to before they become part of our laws. The Senate did not approve the Paris Climate Accord.

The Paris Climate Accord is and was written to take away American exceptionalism. President Obama and most Liberals do not believe that America is anything special. And their policies and philosophies always attack that idea. They think that America should be like any other nation struggling to exist in the world. And the terrible Paris Climate Accord would have done just that to this great nation.

We all agree that we do need clean water to drink. Clean air to breathe. And to be able to enjoy God’s green earth that He created. We are the stewards of God’s creation after all. We don’t want to destroy it ourselves.

Climate changes all the time. There is nothing that man can do to stop or change it. To truly believe that man is responsible for such things is the very height of vanity. It places man above God and is wrong, sinful, and leads to nothing be evil.

So thank you again to President Trump for doing what he promised to do if he was elected to the highest office. The people have spoken and the White House has listened.

Your Scientific Papers, Please


Sometimes, it takes me a while to find news stories to share with you faithful readers. Other times, the blogs and jokes write themselves.

From our good friends in the California Senate comes Senate Bill 1161, known as the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016. What would this bill do exactly? Considering it’s from the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes, nothing good.

But let me let the California State Senate Rules Committee provide further details.

This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL (Unfair Competition Law) claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change.
To put it in non-Legalese, the bill gives attorneys the ability to go after companies and organizations they believe attempt to muddy the waters of the “settled science” of man-made global climate change.

Let that sink in for a moment. This bill would essentially make it illegal to dissent with the Left’s version of science.

The good news is the bill has been withdrawn after groups from both sides of the political spectrum attacked it as being too extreme. The bad news is the bill can be reintroduced later (like, say, when the Left gets rid of these  nutjobs who believe in this wacky idea they call “freedom of speech”). For now, though, climate change realists can continue to tell the truth about how little impact humans have on global temperatures.

And that’s why the Left feels they need to silence those of us who think they’re full of crap because, well, we understand science. The Left wants to use science as a sword when they think it proves their points. Let’s not forget the Left has been saying man-made global warming has been “settled science” for years and anyone who disagrees with the science is like Holocaust deniers.

Except when the science proves them wrong. Then, they ignore the actual science in favor of their “settled science” or try to discredit it in any way they can. With the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, the Left attempted to give their “science” a legal cudgel to beat their opponents into submission.

All because they can’t debate the topic honestly.