Obama Announces Plan to Save the Earth from a Problem That Doesn’t Exist


Obama has failed to fix the economy or win the war in Afghanistan, but give him an imaginary problem and he’s on it like Michelle on a glazed poundcake.

Even major liberal media outlets are admitting that the whole Global Warming thing isn’t panning out. So that’s the perfect time for His Majesty Barack I, Protector of the Planet from the Carbon Devil, to announce that he will be bypassing Congress and going all Imperial Presidency on a problem that even its enthusiastic backers are backing away from. While raising electricity rates sky high.

“The question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements, has put all that to rest,” Obama said in a major policy address at Georgetown University. “So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late.”

Outlets that have questioned whether we really need to act recently include Warmist boosters like the New York Times and the New Republic. More and more scientists are challenging the Global Warming-Green Energy complex’s fable about the endangered earth. But they must all be members of the Flat Earth Society.

He later added, addressing those who deny climate change science: “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.”

Except when it comes to economics. Then Obama convenes a bunch of economists who claim that money is imaginary and that the more of it we print, the more we’ll be able to spend.

“I’m directing the [EPA] to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants,” he said.

What that really means is electricity rates climbing through the roof. Also carbon is not a pollutant. Except maybe the carbon that comes out of Obama’s mouth every time he speaks and other unnamed parts.

“At the time when we passed the Clean Air Act, to try to get rid of some of this smog, some of the same doom-sayers were saying, ‘New pollution standards will decimate the auto industry,’” Obama said. “Guess what? It didn’t happen. Our air got cleaner.”

And our auto industry is doing better than ever. Why we have 1 American car company that hasn’t been bailed out or bought out.

“The president has always been hostile to affordable sources of American energy that power most of our economy, but this program – which amounts to a National Energy Tax – only escalates his attack,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.

  • underground

    Treason is criminal disloyalty. Historically, in common law countries, high treason is treason against the state. It was differentiated from petty treason (or petit treason), which was treason against a lawful superior (such as a servant killing his master). (Petty treason was restricted to cases of homicide in 1351, and came to be considered a more serious degree of murder.) As common law jurisdictions around the world abolished petty treason, the concept of petty treason gradually faded, and today use of the word “treason” generally refers to high treason. (In nations without a common law legal system, the distinction between high and petty treason did not exist.)

    High treason is criminal disloyalty to one’s government. Participating in a war against one’s native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state are perhaps the best known examples of high treason. High treason requires that the alleged traitor have obligations of loyalty in the state he or she betrayed, such as citizenship, although presence in the state at the time is sufficient. Foreign spies, assassins, and saboteurs, though not suffering the dishonor associated with conviction for high treason, may still be tried and punished judicially for acts of espionage, assassination, or sabotage, though in contemporary times, foreign spies are usually repatriated in exchange for spies of the mentioned nation held by another nation.[1] High treason is considered a very serious – often the most serious possible – crime, by the civil authorities.

    • trickyblain

      Well, it’s clear you can copy-paste directly from Wikipedia. Nice work.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Well, it’s clear that you can troll and blow at the same time.

        • trickyblain

          Pointing out plagiarism is “trolling”?

          In terms of the “blowing” part, don’t know where that came from and frankly don’t want to delve into that part of your psyche. Thank you.

          I did try to leave a reasoned response to your post below, sans insults. No idea why it’s in moderation purgatory…

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Wikipedia is never correct too. You forgot to mention that.

        • tagalog

          Wikipedia is NEVER correct? I beg to disagree; although I agree that it is hardly the final authority on anything, it is often correct.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He knows I’m lampooning him.

    • tagalog

      Don’t forget that in our Constitution, treason includes giving “aid and comfort” to our enemies. For this reason, Edward Snowdon may well be a traitor, not to mention a party to murder, if we have intelligence operatives killed because of his disclosure of the information he took.

  • trickyblain

    Carbon pollution doesn’t exist? Anyone remember LA in the 1970s and 1980s? Did this carbon pollution magically just go away? No. The carbon pollution was dramatically mitigated by actions such as the Clean Air Act (passed by a Republican in saner times).

    • 8ball

      Copied and pasted from Wikipedia for your edification. BTW, CO2 is invisible and odourless.

      “Photochemical smog was first described in the 1950s. It is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles and ground-level ozone.[3] This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:

      Nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide
      Peroxyacyl nitrates
      Tropospheric ozone
      Volatile organic compounds”

    • ziggy zoggy

      “Carbon pollution doesn’t exist?’
      No, it doesn’t. As you stupidly noted as per your troll talking points, auto smog in SOCAL ended 30 years ago. Furthermore, carbon was never the cause of that smog. The gases released by autos were.
      So tell us all how taxing the clean coal that generates the vast majority of American electricity is a good thing, you worthless piece of $hit.

      • trickyblain

        “Troll, troll troll.” Infantile insult. Infantile insult. Infantile insult. What the hell, I’ll try to respond reasonably and hope for a reasonable retort, even in disagreement…

        –Furthermore, carbon was never the cause of that smog. The gases released by autos were.–

        Carbon monoxide is one said gas; one of the primary gases that are monitored in smog testing. The regulation of which has led to a substaintial improvement in California’s air quality. But anyone who flies into LA on a regular basis can plainly see that it has not “ended” entirely. One hell of an improvement, though (thank you Clean Air Act, right?).

        Further, there’s no such entity as “clean coal.” Not yet. Like petroleum, it’s carbon-based — a pollutant when burned.

        I don’t recall advocating a tax, however. Or agreeing with the evil Obama in this case. I was making a point that carbon pollution (from cars, coal, etc.) is in fact a very real thing despite Greenfield’s silly assertion to the contrary.

    • OfficialPro

      smog is not carbon. It’s NOx and SOx.

      • trickyblain

        ..and CO.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          You read “pollution does not contain carbon” but the statement in the article that you seem to dispute states that carbon itself is not a pollutant.

          Agree or disagree?

          • trickyblain

            Agree. Carbon, itself, is not a pollutant.

            But when carbon is heated, a chemical reaction produces a pollutant.

            Carbon needs to be heated — at least at this point — to produce energy. When it’s heated: pollutants.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Carbon needs to be heated — at least at this point — to produce energy. When it’s heated: pollutants.”

            “Carbon pollution” can be managed without a “carbon tax.” Looking at the past, we should learn from our failures and our successes rather than using them as supposed “wins” for “our side” to justify political tyranny. “The air is cleaner because of current emission laws, so the earth really must need our “help” with carbon taxes and crony capitalism.”

            0’Bama is a tyrant. He causes conflict and class tension. He can’t fix anything, if I’m to learn anything from his history. But that’s because Bush was a racist, or something like that.

          • Stan


          • OfficialPro

            plants do not consider CO2 to be a pollutant.

        • OfficialPro

          Carbon Monoxide is not a smog gas. It’s colorless and odorless and will cause you to suffocate but it is not a greenhouse gas.

    • glpage

      Yeah, I do, I lived in SoCal in the late 60’s and remember going to visit friends who lived in Pasadena and getting a monster headache because of the pollution. However, that pollution, which you are referring to, was primarily hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides, not carbon pollution. Those chemicals are very different than CO2 which is not poisonous. The only way CO2 will be poisonous to you is if you don’t exhale. And that’s not really be poisonous, it’s more asphyxiation. Carbon pollution is a bogus construct foisted off on us by the EPA. Tell all the trees and bushes and grasses and so on that CO2 is bad for them, if they could they would laugh at you.

  • Anamah

    Our storyteller pull out a new distraction from the sleeve; this one may be for the umpteenth time… as always his goal is confuse to destroy.
    Why anyone could take his fables seriously?

    • ziggy zoggy

      Unfortunately, Obama’s moves are a combination of distraction and opportunity. He is trying to distract America from his unending scandals while using those scandals as a distraction to push through “Executive Orders” that would otherwise be disputed. His handlers are demonic in their relentless push of their totalitarian agenda.

  • ziggy zoggy

    We don’t have time for chicken little legislation. Excuse me: Presidential fiat.

  • W.F. DePriest

    who will be able to buy these carbon points for what is very much like the Emperors New Clothes………the Rich ……it is common to taxing the very air we breathe…….if you can not afford the Carbon taxes, then the Rich come in and either buy your negative points, or buy your company. Then the Rich not only own your company they own more carbon points, money in the bank for them. Thus it all comes down to a legalized Monopoly. It is as if to print money backed by nothing and has no real value other than what they say it is worth……….”Carbon points” not a real thing (money) but worth what they say they are worth.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      This BS is “social justice” and the timing is all about rallying the troops (sycophants) with something to talk about other than trivializing all of the “non-scandals,” to use their language.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Schmick/100000836170959 Bryan Schmick

    Can this be part of a future bid to become the first American UN Sec General followed by world emperor?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Can this be part of a future bid to become the first American UN Sec General followed by world emperor?”

      Yes. The global caliph with the red cape. The mahdi. The second coming of Isa – who was a communist. The great uniter.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Of course, he couldn’t win the war in Afghanistan, as the war in Afghanistan was already lost even before the first soldiers began occupying Afghanistan since it was all based on false and idiotic premises about Islam to begin with and the same false and idiotic premises that I see spewed over here at FPM everyday all these many years later. Indeed, if Republicans are deliberately lying to the American people with respect to Islam, then why should they be trusted on other things, and if they aren’t lying about Islam, then that means they are incredibly incompetent, which is even worse.

    Nevertheless, promoting Global Warming is about as ludicrous and dysfunctional as promoting multiculturalism in the name of diversity.

    America is screwed man! Look at the level of incompetence being demonstrated by our current crop of politicians. If this is the best we can do, then we deserve to go down.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “At the time when we passed the Clean Air Act, to try to get rid of some of this smog, some of the same doom-sayers were saying, ‘New pollution standards will decimate the auto industry,’” Obama said. “Guess what? It didn’t happen. Our air got cleaner.”

    The auto industry is doing fantastic. Thanks to the government. And unions.

    And since the air is now cleaner, that must mean we need to believe all of the global warming zealots because, after all, “conservatives” didn’t always agree 100% with mean-greenies of the past.

    • glpage

      CO2 isn’t quite the same as hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, sulfur, etc. Besides, the industries Obama is trying to throttle have been cleaned up substantially by the same regulations that cleaned up cars. If you want to limit carbon emissions why not start with countries that make what the USA produces look like a drop in the bucket? Whatever we do in the states will have no real effect except to hurt our economy. So, go raise the issue in India and China.

      By the way, did you know that CO2 is about 0.04% of the total volume of our atmosphere and that mans annual contribution to that is about 3% of the total volume of CO2 released into the atmosphere? So, mankind’s contribution to the total in the atmosphere is pretty much a drop in the bucket. Further, estimates indicate that the USA’s part of that total is about 5 or 6% and without Obama’s intended silliness that percentage is going down. So, considering what microscopically small reduction will be made by shutting down coal generated energy production, is the probable massive hit to our economy really worth it?

  • DogmaelJones1

    I burst out laughing when I read this: “Obama has failed to fix the economy or win the war in Afghanistan, but
    give him an imaginary problem and he’s on it like Michelle on a glazed
    poundcake.” Daniel, you are so justifiably cruel. Love it.

  • tickletik

    Im so happy this man is president. I really want to see the American public suffer for electing him. Burn it all down Barack! Go Man Go!

  • tagalog

    Our air got cleaner, all right. Many global-warming scientists claim that it’s the cleaner atmosphere that is fostering the warming that is purported to be taking place. If we still had more pollutants in the atmosphere, the overall effect would be too make the earth’s atmosphere cooler.

  • Hoss

    He’ll bring us down to third world level, one way or another.

  • quillerm

    China and India are building polluting Coal Plants at a rate of one a day. Obama managed to ignore that China has increased their carbon emmissions by 10% while the US has the lowest carbon emissions in 20 years. Yet, we are the problem in Obama’s eyes. We have the technology to build Clean Coal Plants, but NO, Obama wants to keep China’s economy booming while cutting our throats.

  • batmanroxus

    Well , at least he is in his element… fantasy land.

  • Carlos SpicyWeener

    Captain Zero is at it again! Look folks: It’s a bird; it’s a plane; it’s a flaccid metrosexual failure!

  • ziggy zoggy

    Stupid troll. Are you going to cry? Co2 is a trace gas that feeds every stalk of broccoli and carrot that you leftards worship. And oh, yeah. Every other plant and tree on the planet. Curse you, “manmade” Co2!
    I am currently living in Lake Forest CA, so I can say from first hand experience that CA smog is a thing of the past and that you are full of $hit – not that either was ever in doubt.
    Coal is not a pollutant when burned to generate electricity because none of its smoke is allowed to reach the atmosphere, you stupid piece of lying dog$hit.
    Co2 pollution is as phony as a monostream media narrative.

  • Stan

    It’s a brilliant plan to save the planet!
    Making the clean factories in the US even less competitive with the higher polluting factories in China is sure to reduce pollution!

    Oh, wait…

    Wanna have a little fun with the greens?
    Ask them HOW making our clean industry less competitive with the higher polluting industry in China will help the environment.
    Don’t expect rational answers though…

    So called Locovores want us to eat food grown within 100 miles of our homes to reduce pollution from transportation but they want us to buy more of our steel from China.

  • Stan

    You seem to have mixed up carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide…….