Posted by: the daily messenger | June 12, 2019

Bad girls and Bad boys, Clinton and Lynch

Tarmac in Phoenix, summer 2016

The infamous meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on a tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona during the height of the Hillary Clinton email-gate scandal.  The conversation was captured by the NSA.  Lynch was promised a supreme court seat in return for giving HRC a pass.

Did a Foreign State gain access to the server?
Did a Foreign State gain access to the SAP/SCI material on the server?📁
Take a moment and think about what that means. 

Heavily covered by the MSM, and the NWO, as usual…plus the NSA

NSA transcripts from surveillance. People should leave their cell phones in the car, if you are going to collude to break Federal Law…

The Deal of a Lifetime?
[Tarmac] meeting not planned according to [LL] & [BC]?
Security reports indicate USSS (sec detail [BC] & FBI (sec detail [LL]) planned for meeting?
SC/[LL] deal presented by BC?
What actions did [JC] take days after?
Less than a week after the tarmac meeting, [JC] announced that the FBI would not recommend an indictment against [HRC]?

[WH [Hussein][VJ][DM][JB][RE][[[JK]]][SP][KM]]←—-→[HRC/DNC]
[C_A [JB][CLAS1-5]](NSA – play/reveal TT)                       ^^
[DNI [JC]]                                                                            ^^                                        
   ^^^^^                                                                                ^^
[DOJ [LL][SY][BO-CS(UK)][DL][PS][DL][JC][MM][RB]]←——–→[BC]*
[FBI [JC][AM][JR][MS][BP][PS][LP][JB][MK][JC][SM][TG][KC]]←————→[[HRC][BC][HA][CM]………][FAKE NEWS]
[FUSION GPS](Shell2)←——–(CS)——-→[NO NAME]
[PERKINS COIE](Shell2)                                  ^^^^^
[WASH FREE BEACON](Shell1)                      ^^^^^^
*Tarmac (final meeting – no charges/drop = supreme court)
*Go-Between(s) (meetings 1-4)
Hussein (3) NAT SEC ORDERS OFFICIAL (POTUS CAN DECLAS)(Bottom-to-top (see now))(FBI/DOJ to expand fast)
FISA apps FALSE activate domestic spy campaign (UK assist – feed to C_A (cannot operate domestically)(JB)
They NEVER thought she would lose.
Intel spy codes regarding Lynch and Clinton meeting.
Pretty out there, isn’t it?
Here is some more “crazy out there” stuff

This is for K and G, you know who you are. And so do we.

A key player in Hildebeast’s worldwide Pizzagate child trafficking rings
Kate Spade Suicide Jun 5th 2018

Kate Spade, 55, was a leading fashion designer who’s death was ruled suicide by hanging. She left a note to her daughter that said: “Bea — I have always loved you. This is not your fault. Ask Daddy!”  Kate was linked to child trafficking networks operating in China, Mexico and the USA through the Clinton Foundation, among others. As indictments looked large, she took her life.


Pedogate / Human Trafficking

Pedogate is child trafficking and pedophilia that is rampant among elites in government, Hollywood and elsewhere.  It also covers child abductions (Haiti / Red Cross) for satanic rituals and human sacrifice (Epstein Island).  The pedo networks are being dismantled by POTUS and allies world wide (3,000+ children saved in Saudi Arabia alone).  Adam Schiff’s district in CA is a hot spot for child trafficking in the USA.  The Clinton Foundation is also linked to human trafficking worldwide.

Ray Chandler = Allison Mack (NXIVM Sex Trafficker) x 100
Pizzagate, child sacrifice hang together crew – Ray and Bill

Rachel and Rothschild…heavy hitters in the synagogue of satan

Yeah, this Ray Chandler, murderer, witch, MS13 Handler, Satanist

Ray (raychel) chandler with Prince Andrew. The Satanic network of baby killing, blood drinking, nasty skank killers.
Posted by: the daily messenger | June 12, 2019

Evicting demons, our Father’s angels stand ready always to serve

Tobit 3:16-17 Good News Translation (GNT)

God Hears the Prayers of Tobit and Sarah

16 As Tobit and Sarah were praying, God in heaven heard their prayers 17 and sent his angel Raphael to help them. He was sent to remove the white film from Tobit’s eyes, so that he could see again, and to arrange a marriage between Sarah and Tobit’s son Tobias, who, as her cousin, had the right to marry her. Raphael was also ordered to expel the demon Asmodeus from Sarah. At the very moment that Tobit went back into his house from the courtyard, Sarah, in her house in Ecbatana, was coming downstairs.


I took this in 2010 while picking up my sons from Valencia High; the bridge on Newhall Ranch Road, where the tennis courts are. The beam followed the car for a quick few seconds. Then vanished. It came straight from the sun. Also, there is an angelic presence in the sky above the car, some 100 feet or so…I wonder what triggered this response from Uriel, the Angel of the Sun, as the Bible indicates. Billions of angels, all assisting with the direction of Earth and its much loved Adamic souls. As can be seen, the beam enters directly where the driver sits. Prayer answered.

Posted by: the daily messenger | June 12, 2019

Demon Lovers and The Fall of Babylon

Via The College Fix,
A legal Chinese immigrant professor from Georgia Gwinnett College is facing harsh criticism calls for his termination following “controversial” remarks he made about illegal immigration. Hypocritical satanic leftest shitbirds want THIS LEGAL IMMIGRANT GONE. If he were illegal, it would be okay.

Not hurt feelings…goes against the satanic plan to destroy this country

According to the Atlanta Journal ConstitutionFang Zhou of the college’s history department used phrases such as “ghetto thugs” and “libtards” on social media, and said he has a sign in his office which reads “Deportation of illegal immigrants.”

Zhou said he “speaks truth to power” in his class and teaches about “the financial drain of illegal immigration on the economy and the high crime rates of illegal immigrants.” Upon completion of his course, Zhou said his students are “overwhelmingly against” illegal immigration.
Democratic Georgia State Representative Bee Nguyen, who’s of Vietnamese descent, posted some of Zhou’s comments on Twitter noting he was “sharing ‘inflammatory terminology’” and spreading “false narratives” about illegals.
She asked, “Are these the values supported by Georgia Gwinnett College?”

From the story:

“I have concerns about him teaching those things in a classroom,” [Nguyen said.]
Nguyen […] said she found the remarks particularly disturbing because of the college’s racial diversity. Nearly 70% of its students are African American, Asian or Hispanic. The lawmaker said she planned to write the college to voice her concerns. She noted U.S. House lawmakers passed a bill this week that would offer a path to U.S. citizenship for young, undocumented immigrants.
Some people who responded to Nguyen’s tweet said they have previously complained to the college about Zhou. The college sent the AJC its policies concerning freedom of expression for students and faculty but didn’t immediately respond to an interview request.
The college’s academic freedom policy allows faculty to speak without fear of censure, but reminds them that they “should remember that the public may judge [his/her] profession and [his/her] institution by [his/her] utterances.”

Zhou said he welcomes criticism:

“Everybody has free speech.” Unless it goes against the satanic agenda of the elite who rule this world.

He noted he doesn’t force his views on students and discusses other subjects in class. He also said he’s gotten hate mail from students who disagree with him.

Posted by: the daily messenger | June 12, 2019

The FBI Tragedy: Elites Above The Law

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via,
After decades in the FBI, the top brass came to believe they could flout the law and pursue their own political agendas.

One of the media and beltway orthodoxies we constantly hear is that just a few bad apples under James Comey at the FBI explain why so many FBI elites have been fired, resigned, reassigned, demoted, or retired — or just left for unexplained reasons. The list is long and includes director James Comey himself, deputy director Andrew McCabe, counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, attorney Lisa Page, chief of staff James Rybicki, general counsel James Baker, assistant director for public affairs Mike Kortan, Comey’s special assistant Josh Campbell, executive assistant director James Turgal, assistant director for office of congressional affairs Greg Bower, executive assistant director Michael Steinbach, and executive assistant director John Giacalone. In short, in about every growing scandal of the past two years — FISA, illegal leaking, spying on a presidential candidate, lying under oath, obstructing justice — someone in the FBI is involved.

We are told, however, that the FBI’s culture and institutions are exempt from the widespread wrongdoing at the top. Such caution is a fine and fitting thing, given the FBI’s more than a century of public service. Nonetheless, many of those caught up in the controversies over the Russian-collusion hoax were not recent career appointees. Rather, many came up through the ranks of the FBI. And that raises the question, for example, of where exactly Peter Strzok (22 years in the FBI) learned that he had a right to interfere in a U.S. election to damage a candidate that he opposed?

And why would an Andrew McCabe (over 21 years in the FBI) think he had the duty to formulate an “insurance policy” to take out a presidential candidate? Or why would he even consider overseeing an FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s improper use of emails when his wife had been a recent recipient of Clinton-related PAC money? And why would McCabe contemplate leaking confidential FBI information to the press or even dream of setting up some sort of operation to remove a sitting president under the 25th Amendment? And how did someone like the old FBI vet Peter Strozk ever end up at the center of the entire mess — opening up the snooping on the Trump campaign while hiding that fact and while briefing the candidate on Russian interference in the election, interviewing Michael Flynn, preening as a top FBI investigator for Robert Mueller’s dream team, right-hand man of “Andy” McCabe, convincing Comey to change the wording of his writ in the Clinton-email-scandal investigation, softball coddling of Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, instrumental in the Papadopoulos investigation con — all the while conducting an affair with fellow FBI investigator and attorney Lisa Page and bragging about his assurance that the supposedly odious Trump would be prevented from being elected. If a group of Trump zealots were to call up the FBI tomorrow and allege that a member of Joe Biden’s family has had unethical ties with the Ukrainian or Chinese government, would that gambit “alarm” the FBI enough to prompt an investigation of Biden and his campaign? How many career-professional Peter Strozks are still at the agency?

In sum, why did so many top FBI officials, some with long experience in the FBI, exhibit such bad judgment and display such unethical behavior, characterized by arrogance, a sense of entitlement, and a belief that they were above both the law and the Constitution itself? Were they really just rogue agents, lawyers, and administrators, or are they emblematic of an FBI culture sorely gone wrong?

How and why would James Comey believe that as a private citizen he had the right to leak classified memos of presidential conversations that he had recorded on FBI time and on FBI machines?
Does the FBI inculcate behavior that prompts its officials to repeatedly testify under oath that they either don’t know or can’t remember – in a fashion that would earn an indictment for most similarly interrogated private citizens? Was Strozk’s testimony to the Congress emblematic of a career FBI agent in his full? Was Comey’s? Was McCabe’s?

To answer those questions, perhaps we can turn to an analogous example of special counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller. We are always advised something to the effect that the admirable Vietnam War veteran and career DOJ and FBI administrator Bob Mueller has a sterling reputation, and thus we were to assume that his special-counsel investigation would be free from political bias. To suggest otherwise was to be slapped down as a rank demagogue of the worse kind.
But how true were those beltway narratives? Mueller himself had a long checkered prosecutorial and investigative career, involving questionable decisions about the use of FBI informants in Boston, and overseeing absolutely false FBI accusations against an innocent suspect in the sensationalized anthrax case that began shortly after 9/11.

The entire Mueller investigation did not reflect highly either on Mueller or the number of former and current DOJ and FBI personnel he brought on to his team. In a politically charged climate, Mueller foolishly hired an inordinate number of political partisans, some of whom had donated to the Clinton campaign, while others had legally defended the Clinton Foundation or various Clinton and Obama aides. Mueller’s point-man Andrew Weissman was a known Clinton zealot with his own past record of suspect prosecutorial overreach.

Mueller did not initially disclose why FBI employees Lisa Page and Peter Strozk were taken off his investigative team, and he staggered their departures to suggest that their reassignments were normal rather than a consequence of the couple’s unprofessional personal behavior and their textual record of rank Trump hatred. Mueller’s very appointment was finessed by former FBI director and Mueller friend James Comey and was largely due to the hysteria caused by Comey’s likely felonious leaks of confidential and classified FBI memos — a fact of no interest to Mueller’s soon-to-be-expanded investigation.

During the investigation, Mueller was quite willing to examine peripheral issues such as the scoundrelly behavior of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and the inside lobbying of Paul Manafort for foreign governments. Fine. But Mueller was curiously more discriminating in his non-interest in crimes far closer to the allegations of Russian collusion. That is, he was certainly uninterested about how and when the basis for his entire investigation arose — the unverified and fallacious Steele dossier that had been deliberately seeded among the FBI, CIA, and DOJ to achieve official imprimaturs so it could then be leaked to the press to ruin the campaign, transition, and presidency of Donald Trump.

Mueller’s team also deliberately edited a phone message from Trump counsel John Dowd to Robert Kelner, General Michael Flynn’s lawyer, to make it appear incriminating and possibly unethical or illegal. Only after a federal judge ordered the full release of the transcript did the public learn the extent of Mueller’s selective and misleading cut-and-paste of Dowd’s message.
Mueller’s own explanations about the extent to which he was guided by the precedent of presidential exemption from indictment are at odds with his own prior statements and in conflict with what Attorney General Barr has reported from a meeting with Mueller and others. In those meetings, Mueller assured that he was after the truth and did not regard prior legal opinions about the illegality of indicting a sitting president as relevant to his own investigations. But when he essentially discovered he had no finding of collusion, he then mysteriously retreated to the previously rejected notion that he was powerless to indict Trump on a possible obstruction charge.

Mueller displayed further contortions when he recited a number of alleged Trump wrongdoings but then backed off by concluding that, while such evidence for a variety of different reasons did not justify an indictment of Trump, nonetheless Trump should not be exonerated of obstruction of justice.
Mueller thereby established a new but lunatic precedent in American jurisprudence in which a prosecutor who fails to find sufficient cause to indict a suspect nonetheless releases supposedly incriminating evidence, with a wink that the now-besmirched suspect cannot be exonerated of the alleged crimes. Think what Mueller’s precedent of not-not-guilty would do to the American criminal-justice system, as zealous prosecutors might fish for just enough dirt on a suspect to ruin his reputation, but not find enough for an indictment, thereby exonerating their own prosecutorial failure by defaming a “guilty until proven innocent” suspect.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Mueller’s team knew early on in their investigation that his lead investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had been correct in their belief that there was “no there there” in the charges of collusion — again the raison d’être of their entire investigation.

Yet Mueller’s team continued the investigation, aggregating more than 200 pages of unverified or uncorroborated news accounts, online essays, and testimonies describing all sorts of alleged unethical behavior and infelicities by Trump and his associates, apparently in hopes of compiling their own version of something like the Steele dossier. Mueller sought to publish a compendium of Trump bad behavior that fell below the standard of criminal offense but that would nonetheless provide useful fodder for media sensationalism and congressional partisan efforts to impeach the now supposedly not-not guilty president.

Note again, at no time did Muller ever investigate the Steele dossier that had helped to create his existence as special counsel, much less whether members of the FBI and DOJ had misled a FISA court by hiding critical information about the dossier to obtain wiretaps of American citizens, texts that Mueller himself would then use in his effort to find criminal culpability.
We were told throughout the 22-month investigation that “Bob Mueller does not leak.” But almost on a weekly schedule, left-wing cable news serially announced in formulaic fashion that “the walls were closing in on” and the “noose was tightening around” Trump as another “bombshell” disclosure was anticipated, according to “sources close to the Mueller investigation,” “unnamed sources,” and “sources who chose to remain unidentified.” On one occasion, CNN reporters mysteriously showed up in advance at the home of a Mueller target, to capture on camera the arrival of paramilitary-like arresting officers.

When it is established beyond a doubt that foreign surveillance of and contact with George Papadopoulos was used to entrap a minor Trump aide as a means of providing an ex post facto justification for the earlier illegal FBI and CIA surveillance of the Trump campaign, and when it is shown without doubt that Steele had little if any corroborating evidence for his dirty dossier, Mueller’s reputation unfortunately will be further eroded.

Yet the question is not merely whether a Comey, McCabe, or Mueller is atypical of the FBI. Rather, where in the world, if not from the culture of the FBI, did these elite legal investigators absorb the dangerous idea that FBI lawyers and investigators could flout the law and in such arrogant fashion use their vast powers of the government to pursue their own political agendas? And why was there no internal pushback at a supercilious leadership that demonstrably had gone rogue? Certainly, the vast corpus of the Strzok-Page correspondence does reflect a unprofessional, out-of-control culture at the FBI.

Just imagine: If an agent Peter Strozk interviewed you and overstepped his purview, would you, the aggrieved, then appeal to his boss, Andrew McCabe? And if Andrew McCabe ignored your complaint, would you, the wronged, then seek higher justice from a James Comey, who in turn might rely on a legal opinion from a Lisa Page or a brief from a James Baker? And failing that, might a Robert Mueller as an outside auditor rectify prior FBI misconduct?

Fairly or not, the current FBI tragedy is that an American citizen should be duly worried about his constitutional rights any time he is approached by such senior FBI officials. That is not a slur on the rank and file, but the legacy of the supposed best and brightest of the agency and their distortions of the bureau’s once professional creed.

Posted by: the daily messenger | June 12, 2019

America Was Almost Destroyed By the Satanic Cabal

Posted by: the daily messenger | June 11, 2019

Pinterest Insider Fired; Part 2 Coming Soon…

Juicing and Raw Foods: Soy is a phytoestrogen – BEYOND MEAT is actually a…: ” Soy is a phytoestrogen, or a plant based estrogen . It contains two isoflavones, genistein and daidzein, which act like estrogen (…

Image result for soy dangerous

Posted by: the daily messenger | June 11, 2019

CIA asked Moby to spread Trump/Russia BS

Posted by: the daily messenger | June 11, 2019

NEW: The Clinton Email Investigation and Guccifer

Pinterest is run by full blown dykes in their editorial and management staff. See for your self. And as the world is slowly learning, the LGBTFUCKO thingy is a satanic creation and control vector of society.

Also, Pinterest is majority owned by an investment front company – INQTEL – which means the CIA is actually running Pinterest. Just like Facebarf, Googleye, and Youtubers.

Wow, so stealing is okay if you are black or brown, but not white. That’s the message.

Get caught stealing, robbing, and assaulting and the cops and victims are now “racist.” The owners had their tires slashed, their business vandalized, and were doxed and attacked by black students, at the written encouragement of Oberlin University.
Aggravated robbery is a term used to describe a situation where the offender uses violence to deprive the victim of their personal possessions and/or money.  So the University supports violent felons. Remove their charter and accreditation.

The satanic left has gone completely insane…and they are enforcing that craziness on the rest of us.

Rob me and go to jail. Unless you are black.

But while these incidents may have tarnished the school’s reputation, reinforcing its reputation as a bastion of over-privileged trust-funders, the college will now face a very real cost after losing a legal battle with a local bakery that has been a pillar of the downtown business community since it opened more than 100 years ago.

Gibson’s, a bakery known for its wheat donuts and apple fritters, has for decades held a standing contract to supply baked goods for university functions. But the school cut ties with Gibson’s after an incident where a young black student was caught trying to steal a few bottles of wine.
A scuffle ensued, and ended with the student’s arrest and arraignment on a robbery charge.

When Aladin arrived at the front of the store, Gibson, 32 at the time, told the student that he was contacting the police, saying he had seen him slip two bottles of wine under his clothes. When he pulled out his phone to take a picture, according to a police report, Aladin slapped it away, causing it to strike Gibson’s face.

Gibson followed the student from the store, where they began exchanging blows across the street, which is campus property. Police said they arrived to find Gibson on his back, with Aladin, joined by two other blacks, punching and kicking him. All three were charged, Aladin with robbery and his friends with assault.

Soon, the school’s students, led by the Black Student Union, had branded Gibson’s a “RACIST” establishment, even though three black students robbed, then beat the owner near to death on a 3 on 1 attack.

Students encouraged a boycott of the establishment, which is owned by Gibson’s father, David R. Gibson, and his grandfather, also named Allyn.
“A member of our community was assaulted by the owner of this establishment yesterday,” read a flier distributed outside the bakery, calling Gibson’s a “RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.” The leaflet recommended 10 rival businesses where patrons could go instead.

Modern liberal freak heads are clearly insane.

The school followed up by suspending its Gibson’s order (though it was later quietly reinstated). But for Gibson’s, the damage had already been done, and small business decided to pursue a civil complaint against the school and a senior administrator.

For Gibson’s owners, that did not settle the matter. In November 2017, they filed a civil complaint against Oberlin in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. Accusing the college of lending support to the protests, the Gibson family sued the institution, as well as Raimondo, for libel, slander, interference with business relationships, interference with contracts, deceptive trade practices, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and trespass.

The owners argued that college leaders facilitated the “illegal defamation and economic boycott” by helping students copy and distribute the fliers, as well as joining them at protest actions and allowing them to skip class and gain credit to continue their campaign. According to the complaint, a Facebook post by an Oberlin academic department stated, “Gibson’s has been bad for decades, their dislike of Black people is palpable. Their food is rotten and they profile Black students. NO MORE!”

College administrators and teachers clearly encourage this kind of sick, societal brain damage. Hopefully, black thugs will visit their homes and give them what they give the community at large.

“Gibson’s Bakery has suffered a severe and sustained loss of student, professor, administrative, and college department business,” the complaint argued. It also pointed to a “severe emotional and physical toll” on the family. Their home had been damaged, they claimed, and their car tires punctured.

Gibson’s ended up winning an $11 million judgment.

At least there is occasional justice out there once in awhile.

Satanic network assets shoving the lies down all our throats. The more they lie, the more they are exposed for their lies.

Climate Change = un-disprovable
heads we win / tails you lose
too hot / too cold (GW)
too many volcano eruptions / no volcano eruptions (GW)
too much flooding  no flooding (GW)
too many hurricanes / too few hurricanes (GW)
too hot / too cold (GW)
too much snow / too little snow (GW)
too many polar bears / too few polar bears (GW)
Antarctica shrinking / Antarctica expanding (GW)

Forbidden Reading: Marc Morano’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change

It’s not about science. It’s all about controlling you! Agenda 21 is all about SLAVERY and that means you, dear readers, that means YOU.


Authored by Robert Murphy via The Institute for Energy Research,
I recently gave a talk to a student group at Connecticut College on the economics of climate change. (The video is broken up into three parts on my YouTube channel: onetwo, and three.) In this post I’ll summarize three of my main points:

(1) There is a huge disconnect between what the published economics research actually says about government policies to limit global warming, and how the media is reporting it.
(2) President Trump taking the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement doesn’t really affect anything on the margin, even if we stipulate the alarmist position on climate change.

The “Consensus Research” Does Not Justify Radical Political Intervention

I first clarified to the students that throughout my talk, I wasn’t going to grab results from right-wing think tanks, or from “fringe” scientists who were considered cranks by their peers. On the contrary, I would be relaying results from sources such as the work of a Nobel laureate William Nordhaus (whose model on climate change policy had been one of three used by the Obama Administration) and from the UN’s own periodic report summarizing the latest research on climate change science and policy.
To demonstrate just how wide the chasm is between the actual economics research and the media treatment of these issues, I described to the students the spectacle I observed back in the fall of 2018, when on the same weekend news came out that William Nordhaus had won the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on the economics of climate change and that the UN released a “Special Report” advising governments to try to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The media treatment (sometimes in the same story) presented these events with no sense of conflict or irony, leading regular citizens to assume that Nordhaus’ Nobel-winning work supported the UN’s goals for policymakers.
But that is not true at all. Here’s a graph from a 2017 Nordhaus publication that I included in my presentation:

As the figure shows, Nordhaus’ model—and again, this isn’t cooked up by the Heritage Foundation, but instead was one selected by the Obama Administration’s EPA and was the reason he won the Nobel Prize—projects that if governments “did nothing,” total global warming would reach about 4.1 degrees Celsius. In contrast, if governments implemented the “optimal carbon tax,” as Nordhaus would recommend in a perfect world, then total warming would be about 3.5 degrees Celsius.
Anyone remotely familiar with the climate change policy debate knows that such an amount of warming would terrify the prominent activists and groups advocating for a political solution. They would quite confidently tell the public that warming of this amount would spell absolute catastrophe for future generations.
My point here isn’t to endorse Nordhaus’ model. My point is simply that Americans never heard anything about this when the media simultaneously covered Nordhaus’ award and the UN’s document calling for a 1.5°C limit. And yet, Nordhaus’ own work—not shown in the figure above, but I spell it out here—clearly concludes that such an aggressive target would cause far more damage to humans in the form of reduced economic output, that it would be better for governments to “do nothing” about climate change at all.

With or Without the United States, the Paris Agreement Was Going to “Fail”

To continue with the theme of how they’ve been misinformed, I reminded the students of the media’s apoplexy when Trump announced his intention to remove the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement (or treaty, in lay terms). I showed them a headline in which famed physicist Stephen Hawking said Trump was pushing the planet “over the brink.”
I then asked the students rhetorically, “You would think that the Paris Agreement was going to ‘work’ to contain the threat of climate change, except for Trump pulling out and wrecking it, right?”
And yet, the pro-intervention group nicely illustrates that even if all countries met their pledges (including the U.S.), it wouldn’t come close to limiting warming to the weaker benchmark of 2°C, let alone the newer, more chic target of 1.5°C. Things were even worse if we evaluated the actual policies of governments (as opposed to what they stated they intended to do, about limiting their emissions).

Further, I included a screenshot (in the top left of the slide) from a Vox article published before Trump’s Paris announcement, which said not a single country on Earth was taking the 2°C target seriously.

Technological Solutions

After spending so much time showing that the political “solutions” were failing even on their own terms, I summarized a few avenues of research (see this article for details) where scientists are exploring techniques to either remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or reflect some incoming sunlight. Although I personally do not think human-caused climate change is a crisis, and do think that adaptation coming from normal economic growth will be more than sufficient to deal with any problems along the way, nonetheless scientists do have these other techniques in their back pocket, should they become necessary to “buy humanity a few decades of breathing room” while technology advances in the transportation and energy sectors.


Americans, especially students, are being whipped into a panic over the allegedly existential threat of climate change. Yet the actual research, summarized in the UN’s own periodic reports and in the research of a Nobel laureate in the field, shows that at best only a modest “leaning against the wind” could be justified according to standard economic science.
By their own criteria, the alarmist activists are admitting that political measures are nowhere near achieving their goals. Their own rhetoric says that these activists are wasting everyone’s time pushing solutions that will end in catastrophe. Occasionally they slip up, as for example when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez admits that her “we have 12 years left” was not to be taken literally.
In order to bring light to the climate change debate, at this point one just needs to actually screenshot and explain the evidence from the establishment sources. The rhetorical framing of the issue is so far removed from the underlying research that this alone is heretical.

Glacier Park isn’t the only place changing out their years of LIES ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE WITH NEW DATES.

This article was written by Roger I. Roots 

Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.

In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing – not shrinking – since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)

The centerpiece of the visitor center at St. Mary near the east boundary is a large three-dimensional diorama showing lights going out as the glaciers disappear. Visitors press a button to see the diorama lit up like a Christmas tree in 1850, then showing fewer and fewer lights until the diorama goes completely dark. As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020.

But at some point during this past winter (as the visitor center was closed to the public), workers replaced the diorama’s ‘gone by 2020’ engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “future generations.”

Almost everywhere, the Park’s specific claims of impending glacier disappearance have been replaced with more nuanced messaging indicating that everyone agrees that the glaciers are melting. Some signs indicate that glacial melt is “accelerating.”

A common trick used by the National Park Service at GNP is to display old black-and-white photos of glaciers from bygone years (say, “1922”) next to photos of the same glaciers taken in more recent years showing the glaciers much diminished (say, “2006”). Anyone familiar with glaciers in the northern Rockies knows that glaciers tend to grow for nine months each winter and melt for three months each summer. Thus, such photo displays without precise calendar dates may be highly deceptive.
Last year the Park Service quietly removed its two large steel trash cans at the Many Glacier Hotel which depicted “before and after” engravings of the Grinnell Glacier in 1910 and 2009. The steel carvings indicated that the Glacier had shrunk significantly between the two dates. But a viral video published on showed that the Grinnell Glacier appears to be slightly larger than in 2009.
The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources. But no mainstream news outlet has done any meaningful reporting regarding the apparent stabilization and recovery of the glaciers in GNP over the past decade. Even local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story.
(Note that since September 2015 the author has offered to bet anyone $5,000 that GNP’s glaciers will still exist in 2030, in contradiction to the reported scientific consensus. To this day no one has taken me up on my offer. –R.R.)
*  *  *

I live very close to Glacier National Park, and while the media has been saying for years that the glaciers are “disappearing”, there has been no significant change in the park’s glaciers in the time I have resided here.  The news above only reinforces the reality that if the climate is “changing”, it is only getting colder, NOT warmer….
– Brandon Smith, Founder of

Posted by: the daily messenger | June 10, 2019

Big Tech Is Big Brother

Posted by: the daily messenger | June 10, 2019


Posted by: the daily messenger | June 10, 2019

Who Does the Media Most Want to Silence?

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »