Post-American Presidency (43 page)

The scientists discussed at length how to close their fellow scientists who were skeptical about global warming out of the climate-change debate, and ultimately discredit them completely: “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature’. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.… What do others think?”
¹⁹

Ball concludes: “Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU [Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia], the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.”
²⁰

Even
The
New York Times
, while remaining smug about the total victory of global warming advocates, revealed that it was shaken: “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode
the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.” Yet it quoted one climatologist whose assessment was a bit more honest: “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.”
²¹

The corrupt, activist media worked hard to bury this explosive story. Environmental reporter Andrew Revkin explained primly in
The
New York Times
why the Paper of Record was not printing the e-mails: “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”
²²

“Acquired illegally”? “Statements that were never intended for the public eye”? Funny how that never seemed to bother them when they published
The Pentagon Papers
.

Yet despite the “mushroom cloud” hanging over what had been the assured proof of man-made global warming, Obama headed to Europe at the end of November to accept his Nobel Peace Prize and make what he promised would be a major address on global warming. Many of us have exposed the hoax of climate change as revealed by legitimate, responsible scientists for years, but still Obama and the socialist elites were determined to rob us blind and torment us with legislation and regulation on what they continued to call “the greatest threat facing humanity.”

As Obama headed to Copenhagen, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the leaked e-mails and the fraud they revealed: “I think there’s no real scientific basis for the dispute of this”—that is, anthropogenic global warming.
²³
“There is nothing in the hacked e-mails that undermines the science upon which this decision is based,” Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson gamely asserted.
²⁴
Global warming czar Carol Browner likewise clung doggedly to her tattered faith: “There has been for a very long time a very small
group of people who continue to say this isn’t a real problem, that we don’t need to do anything. On the other hand, we have 2,500 of the world’s foremost scientists who are in absolute agreement that this is a real problem and that we need to do something and we need to do something as soon as possible. What am I going to do, side with the couple of naysayers out there, or the 2,500 scientists? I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. I mean, these people have been studying this issue for a very, very long time, and agree that the problem is real.”
²⁵

That they might have come to such an agreement based on fraudulent data didn’t seem to trouble her.

The irony was thick. When Barack Obama appointed his science czar, John P. Holdren, he declared that “promoting science isn’t just about providing resources.” Rather, “it’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient.”
²⁶

Except, apparently, when the inconvenient truths involved the fraud of global warming. In that event, it was no longer important to listen to “our scientists” at all, or to read their embarrassing e-mails.

Sarah Palin urged Obama to reconsider and boycott the Copenhagen conference, and skewered his hypocrisy: “Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil.… Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a ‘sin’ against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to ‘restore science to its rightful place.’ Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in ‘restoring science to its rightful place.’”
²⁷

Palin kept up the pressure, writing a week later in
The
Washington Post
that “what Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs—particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.”
²⁸

But Barack Hussein Obama paid no heed. And so, with the prospect of international climate controls looming, American sovereignty was once again threatened.

WHAT LOVERS OF FREEDOM
MUST
DO

When the history of the Obama administration is written, one of its most heinous crimes will be its deliberate policy of destroying American superiority.

We are living at a time of so many firsts, it is difficult to get one’s arms and one’s mind around it. As I said at the beginning of this book, America is being tested in a way she has never been tested before—and you won’t like what comes after America.

In the first year of the post-American presidency, both Iran and North Korea were emboldened to press forward with their nuclear-weapons programs. At the end of December 2009, Gao Shangtao, a professor of international relations at Beijing’s China Foreign Affairs University, was blunt: “The world is worse off than a year ago.” Iran and North Korea “will not give up.”

Mark Fitzpatrick of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said flatly about Iran and North Korea: “Nothing seems to have worked.” UN sanctions proved powerless even to slow them down. Obama’s repeated calls for negotiations came to nothing. Nations that have depended upon the United States to aid in
their defense—notably Israel and the Asian states surrounding North Korea—are quietly exploring other options in the new, post-American world.
¹

And that’s after a year of Obama. Imagine what the world will be like after four years of the post-American presidency.

Obama has moved against free speech and free media, raised taxes, and moved to nationalize the health-care system. In what arena has he ever endorsed independence of thought, action, or property?

America is not dead. But it is time to stand up.

Fight! Defiance is our answer. This is the quintessentially American answer to overwhelming government authority.

For the first time in modern history, during the first months of the Obama administration millions of Americans took to the streets to protest big government. The protesters came in all races, creeds, colors, and ages. This was not a movement limited to one demographic group; it was a distinctly American movement. And while the media tried to pigeonhole it with limiting labels like tea parties, town hall meetings, or 912ers, in reality it was a singular expression of outrage that heralded the beginning of a new American revolution. It was an ordinarily docile population motivated to take to the streets of their towns and cities or jump into the car and head to D.C. to try to stop Obama and the Democrats from plunging the freest nation on earth down the road to serfdom.
²

These protests were a great American moment. And they were ignored in official Washington. The will of the people was dismissed the way an autocratic ruler would turn away supplicants with haughty indifference. It spoke volumes as to what we were dealing with in the White House, the Senate, and the House.

America is under siege. The people are peacefully rebelling and are being summarily ignored. So what is to be done?

First, we must vote them out. We must kick them out in 2010.
We must do this overwhelmingly. We must get involved in local politics. Start with your school boards and city councils. Become a precinct captain. This is what the Left has done. They run Democrats on Republican tickets while we busy ourselves with work, family, hearth, and home. We must take their game plan and use it for the good.

We have been co-opted and conquered while we slept. We cannot take the greatest country in the history of the world for granted. Do we mean for our children and grandchildren to be held hostage to nuclear terrorists and live as slaves to a crushing debt that cannot be paid?

Is that who we are? Is that our legacy?

Our parents and grandparents are thought of as the “greatest generation.” They saved the free world. They destroyed the Third Reich. How will we fight this century’s Nazis? Will we continue to shun our responsibilities to protect and defend our political and economic freedom? If we do, we will go down in history as the “worst generation”—as cowards and degenerate spenders. Our children and our grandchildren will hate us unless we stand up and fight for our freedoms, and practice peaceful civil disobedience against laws that are coercive and unconstitutional.

Samuel Adams said it in the days of the Revolution: “The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation—enlightened as it is—if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”

This does not have to happen. We must choose our candidates wisely and educate the people. You must teach. People need to know
who Saul Alinsky was and why his teachings are so dangerous. People need to know exactly what is wrong with socialism and statism, and why the freedom of speech is so important. People need to know why Islamic supremacism is subversive, threatening the core principles upon which our freedoms are based.

We have to get behind politicians who understand political freedom, capitalism, and Sharia. We need rugged individualists like Sarah Palin, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and Florida congressional candidate Lt. Col. Allen West. Find ideal men and women in your community and get behind them. Men and women as they ought to be in this low state of the world. They exist.

We must elect candidates in 2010 and 2012 who oppose Obama’s socialist and internationalist policies—candidates in sufficient numbers to enable us simply to refuse funding to the post-American president’s most destructive policies.

This will be an uphill battle with the mainstream media shilling for Obama. The media has abdicated its role as public servant. The mainstream media is a corrupt, activist arm of the Hard Left. They no longer cover the news. So you must fight in that arena also. You must choose who edits your news. Find reliable news sources you trust. Become acquainted with the alternative media, the new media, the free media.

Take nothing at face value. Many of our institutions are beyond infiltration—the enemy is in charge (the State Department is a perfect example). They must be rooted out, but this cannot happen until the treasonous clowns who allowed them this access in the first place are voted out. That is what must be done or America cannot be saved.

There is no doubt in my mind that we will win, that good will triumph over evil. But at what cost?

Former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean made it explicit in an April 2009 speech:

And a mixed economy is exactly what Obama has planned.

You cannot have both capitalism and socialism. It’s just that simple. To attempt this is to sign the death warrant of a free nation. And so now, if America ain’t dead yet, the patient is surely on life support. Think Obama’s health-care plan: the problem is the doctor who has vowed to nurse the patient back to health, but is choosing remedies that will only make the sickness worse.

“The fundamental principle of capitalism,” says Ayn Rand, “is the
separation of
State and Economics—that is: the liberation of men’s economic activities, of production and trade, from any form of intervention, coercion, compulsion, regulation, or control by the government.”
⁴