The Enemy Within

The New York Times blames Americans and the US president-elect for global warming and the current drought in Africa.

As Donald Trump Denies Climate Change, These Kids Die of It – The New York Times

Forty years ago, the New York Times blamed global cooling for the drought and famine in Africa.

FORECAST FOR – The New York Times

This is the same New York Times which proposed poisoning Africans to keep their population down. The biologist was Paul Ehrlich, prominent climate alarmist and close associate of Obama’s science czar John Holdren.

A STERILITY DRUG IN FOOD IS HINTED – Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth – Article –

The black population understood at the time that greens and progressives wanted them dead.

The Evening News – Google News Archive Search

China had 1,800 famines over the past 2,000 years, which killed hundreds of millions of people.

15 Jun 1931, Page 6 – Montana Butte Standard at

As China has increased their CO2 emissions, famine and poverty has greatly declined.

Climate Goals Pledged by China and the U.S. – The New York Times

Fossil fuels keep people alive, and end famine. Progressives are the enemy within. They must be exposed and rooted out in the next eight years under President Trump.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to The Enemy Within

  1. Gail Combs says:

    You missed one more recent one Tony… As the new President, O’Bummer took office less than a decade ago.
    Earth population ‘exceeds limits’ — The Guardian UK

    There are already too many people living on Planet Earth, according to one of most influential science advisors in the US government.
    Nina Fedoroff told the BBC One Planet programme that humans had exceeded the Earth’s “limits of sustainability”.
    Dr Fedoroff has been the science and technology advisor to the US secretary of state since 2007, initially working with Condoleezza Rice.

    Under the new Obama administration, she now advises Hillary Clinton.
    “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people,” Dr Fedoroff said, stressing the need for humans to become much better at managing “wild lands”, and in particular water supplies.
    Pressed on whether she thought the world population was simply too high, Dr Fedoroff replied: “There are probably already too many people on the planet.”

    ….In a wide ranging interview, Dr Fedoroff was asked if the US accepted its responsibility to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be driving human-induced climate change. “Yes, and going forward, we just have to be more realistic about our contribution and decrease it – and I think you’ll see that happening.”
    And asked if America would sign up to legally binding targets on carbon emissions – something the world’s biggest economy has been reluctant to do in the past – the professor was equally clear. “I think we’ll have to do that eventually – and the sooner the better.” ….

    And another from the BBC

    Population: The elephant in the room

    Uncontrolled population growth threatens to undermine efforts to save the planet, warns John Feeney. In this week’s Green Room, he calls on the environmental movement to stop running scared of this controversial topic
    Our inability to live as we do, at our current numbers, without causing pervasive environmental degradation is the very definition of carrying capacity overshoot

    It’s the great taboo of environmentalism: the size and growth of the human population.
    It has a profound impact on all life on Earth, yet for decades it has been conspicuously absent from public debate.
    Most natural scientists agree our growing numbers and our unchecked impact on the natural environment move us inexorably toward global calamities of unthinkable severity.
    They agree the need to address population has become desperate.
    Yet many environmentalists avoid the subject, a few objecting strongly to any focus on our numbers.
    Some activists insist acting to influence population growth infringes on human rights; they maintain that it is best to leave the problem alone.
    Let’s dispense with this confused notion right now.
    Yes, there have been past abuses in the name of “population control”.
    There have been abuses of health care and education too, but the idea of reacting by abandoning any of these causes is absurd.
    We can learn from past abuses, reducing the likelihood of fresh problems arising in the future….

    Dr John Feeney is an environmental writer based in Boulder, Colorado, US

    What abuses is he talking of?

    Also in the same time frame the Spectator had this article warning of what Progressives were up to a century a go.
    How eugenics poisoned the welfare state:
    A century ago many leading leftists subscribed to the vile pseudo-science of eugenics, writes Dennis Sewell, and the influence of that thinking can still be seen today
    Dennis Sewell

    Seems Sewell nailed it.

    • Gail Combs says:

      And a decade later the Spectator UK has Why are people so terrified of Milo Yiannopoulos’s book?

      The response to Milo Yiannopoulos getting a big-bucks book deal with Simon & Schuster has been nuts. Even by today’s standards. The cry has gone up that S&S — or SS, amirite? — is endangering the wellbeing of women and gays and blacks and other minorities that have felt the sting of Milo’s camp polemics. Please. It’s a book, not a bomb. It’s words, sentences, ideas, not fire and pogroms. Everyone needs to calm down….

      Adam Morgan, calls the ‘deadly consequences’ of Milo-style ‘hate speech’. Morgan says rhetoric like Milo’s, whether on race or transgenderism, has ‘real-world consequences’ — it nurtures violence. ‘It arguably encourages people such as Omar Mateen [the Florida nightclub shooter] and Dylann Roof [the Charleston Church shooter] to think of entire groups of people as less than human,’ he says. In short, publish Milo’s book and people will die. This is bonkers, and indistinguishable from the fuming of pointy-hatted policers of heresy in the past, who likewise feared that certain ideas, certain words, might warp minds and destroy souls.

      This heated, fearful response to Milo’s book, this Milophobia as we might justifiably call it, shows how deeply the censorious urge runs today. Especially among the intellectual classes and literary set, people you might expect to defend the freedom to publish and rile and upset. The Milo boycotters, those saying we should bombard S&S with letters and emails, say they aren’t engaging in censorship. ‘We aren’t infringing upon Yiannopoulos’s or Simon & Schuster’s free speech,’ says Adam Morgan. Technically they’re right, in that they aren’t legally blocking S&S from publishing ‘Dangerous’. But their hissy fit, their fear of this book, their dread of its ‘deadly consequences’, has all the ingredients of censorship. All of them.….

      Seems they got that one correct too.

  2. RAH says:

    The guy hasn’t even taken office and some bozo is blaming him and us for a drought that has been going on for THREE YEARS! Man the NYT turds are really stinking worse and worse as the time comes when the scam ends.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      This is nothing yet, RAH. One of these day the Progressives will discovers that Obama was half-white or worse, and let the globe fry to kill off blacks.

      • RAH says:

        Of course everyone knows there were never any droughts before all powerful man and his carbon creating machines caused them. But hell, leftists can’t even recognize when a drought is ending or about to end. Witness CA now and Texas before.

  3. John F Hultquist says:

    Nicholas Kristof ==> add this nutcase’s name to the Hall of Shame

    When I started college there was a “history” requirement. A couple of the classes were interesting and useful. However, an instructor of European History (between certain dates I do not recall) spent most of the time giving us the names of “royalty” of the various folks the screwed up that area over several hundred years. Maybe Nic took a similar class.
    Nicholas Kristof studied government and law and seems to have missed any useful history classes. To be fair, “climate science” did not exist during his college days and he would have had to taken actual science classes. Apparently he did not.

  4. Gail Combs says:

    What really grates is that the NYT is at it again.

    Back in Stalin’s Day they denied the deliberate starvation in the Ukraine done by the Communists. Now they are doing the same, DENYING the starvation caused by the Communists hiding under the sheepskin of the UN and the USA.

    Those kids are starving because Obummer is a Communist who doesn’t give a rat’s behind about them. As E.M. Smith said, a solution/ step up has been known since the 1970’s link yet nothing has been done to implement it. Instead revolutions have been fostered that kill people.

  5. Brian G Valentine says:

    Hillary promised to “stop gas fracking.” So did that Che Guevara knock-off, Bernie.

    This was the ONLY thing that prevented the US from an economic depression over the past 8 years, and they were going to stop it.

  6. gnome says:

    It seems fair enough to me. When we had global cooling that caused droughts in Africa, and now we’re supposed to have global warming and they’ve got droughts in Africa.

    Whatever you’ve got there’s droughts in Africa, and something causes them, so why not the current weather fashion?

    • richard verney says:

      The Sahara has changed significantly since the time of the Egyptian civilisation of old. This change was not because of manmade CO2 emissions.

  7. richard verney says:

    In the UK press, one frequently reads stories about famines in Africa, but never in China. I was surprised when a friend of mine who was living in China, about 15 to 20 years ago, told me about the extent of famines in China. I was completely unaware of it since nothing of this was reported in the UK MSM. Strange the causes that some will run.

  8. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    A coup in the United States?

  9. RAH says:

    A great article from the Ace of Spades HQ blog that helps explain the decline of the party to which the enemies within belong.
    “Democratic Party Status Update: Hosed
    The Democratic Party may be on the verge of imploding. In the wake of getting they butt kicked by Donald Trump, perhaps a rethink is in order. A FoxNews article from Dec. 8 says just that: I’m a Democrat but Clinton staffer Jennifer Palmieri’s twisted logic is exactly why we lost, by Bryan Dean Wright, argues that the Democrats are following a defective strategy, one by which they believe, according to Wright:
    …that we can cruise to electoral dominance if we build a coalition of voters based on identity politics. In other words, if Democrats can get a particular slice of Americans to the polls – women, Jews, ethnic minorities, gay men and lesbians  – we will win.

    The idea for this dates back most famously to 2004 when political experts John Judis and Ruy Teixeira published their book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority.” They convinced my party that hard data – demographic, geographic, economic, and political data – forecasted the dawn of a new progressive era.

    They argued that there was a massive wave of Democratic voters in the country’s urban areas just waiting to support the party, and would do so for generations to come.
    Now, there is an obvious flaw in this strategy that the Wile E. Coyote brain trust of the Democratic Party apparently missed. More on that later. Here is the book he’s talking about, The Emerging Democratic Majority:

    In five well-researched chapters and a new afterword covering the 2002 elections, Judis and Teixeira show how the most dynamic and fastest-growing areas of the country are cultivating a new wave of Democratic voters who embrace what the authors call “progressive centrism” and take umbrage at Republican demands to privatize social security, ban abortion, and cut back environmental regulations.

    As the GOP continues to be dominated by neoconservatives, the religious right, and corporate influence, this is an essential volume for all those discontented with their narrow agenda — and a clarion call for a new political order.
    This book actually takes its title for an earlier, similar book that was written from someone on the other side of the aisle, The Emerging Republican Majority by Kevin Phillips.

    One of the most important and controversial books in modern American politics, The Emerging Republican Majority (1969) explained how Richard Nixon won the White House in 1968—and why the Republicans would go on to dominate presidential politics for the next quarter century. Rightly or wrongly, the book has widely been seen as a blueprint for how Republicans, using the so-called Southern Strategy, could build a durable winning coalition in presidential elections. Certainly, Nixon’s election marked the end of a “New Deal Democratic hegemony” and the beginning of a conservative realignment encompassing historically Democratic voters from the South and the Florida-to-California “Sun Belt,” in the book’s enduring coinage.

    Kevin Phillips was kind of like the David Brooks of his day, that is, a DC Beltway “establishment” Republican who pretty much agreed with liberals on most things and who spent more time criticizing Republicans he found distasteful (i.e. actual conservatives) than Democrats. But his Emerging Majority book, one of 15 that he wrote, was very influential in GOP leadership circles. I’ll bet anything that Karl Rove used to sleep with it under his pillow.

    As this article discusses, the Democrats need to decide the future direction of their party, whether they’re going to double down on identity/grievance politics or try to address the economic concerns of millions of working Americans who haven’t been doing so well for the last couple of decades, Americans that the Democrats claim to be the champions of. Clearly, trying to stoke up women, gays, and ethnic minorities is problematic. As Wright said about The Emerging Democratic Majority:

    They argued that there was a massive wave of Democratic voters in the country’s urban areas just waiting to support the party, and would do so for generations to come.
    See the problem? All this strategy will do is pile up big votes in urban areas, i.e. blue states that are already solidly Democratic. And this is precisely what we saw in this election: Clinton racked up lopsided majorities in NY (Clinton 59%), California (61%) and Massachusetts (60%) which did nothing but pad her total in the popular vote which fostered the illusion that she somehow “won” the election. And this explains why the Democrat dead-enders are caterwauling and tearing their hair out over the Electoral College. Meanwhile, they’ve lost more governorships and state legislatures. So they’ve got to figure out how to stop the bleeding. Who knows, maybe they’re bring back the DLC. It will be a sign of health if they do.”

    • Gail Combs says:

      In watching the show in DC and media land for the last two months, my thoughts are: Is Washington DC a Pre-school or a Lunatic Farm?

      I cringe when ever I think of other countries warching the antics of our media and politicians.

      • RAH says:

        I kinda used to think that way too until I watched a long translated speech to the French people by then President Mitterrand. That is when I realized there must be some truth to the definition of Hell as a place where:
        The British are the cooks
        The Germans are the police
        The French are the politicians.

  10. RAH says:

    In other news a snowflake that they say is a “meteorologist” is melting down:
    “Meteorologist: Climate Change and Trump Have Driven Me to Therapy”

    • Gail Combs says:

      That guy needed therapy a LOOOOooooong time ago. Unfortunately the shrink is probably another crazy liberal. They usually are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *