Elections

Time indulges another totalitarian voice for the 2019 Person of the Year

16yo climate alarmist Greta Thunberg defines our age. As many of you know, she has been awarded Time’s 2019 Person of the Year. Sort of fitting given the magazine has a tendency to hand it to those that speak in totalitarian tones (not her own of course). Recently, she dropped the following statement,

After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.

One doesn’t have to be a teenager either to formulate such views. It wasn’t so long ago that an 11-yo implored all climate activists to go beyond the battle for global warming and fight for gun control, LGBTQ+ rights and to demand that her teachers can receive a living wage. How dare we even question where she got such thoughts! Kids just know better than we selfish adults (who used to recycle milk bottles, wash diapers and push lawnmowers) who have trashed their planet!

FNFM has always felt pity for poor Greta and written so on multiple occasions. She has been systematically abused by authoritarian adults to push their ridiculous globalist agenda. Knowing that it is uncool to attack a kid, she makes the perfect human shield. She is the participation trophy personified. Her “how dare you” assertions are never challenged by the media who toss softball questions to further deify this high priestess of the climate change movement. We must not challenge and inevitably we will probably lose our right to do so thanks to the cancel culture amongst the youth today. Such blasphemy won’t be tolerated.

No one can deny the passion with which she has embraced her cause even if not completely aware of the hypocrisy created by it. While the gesture of sailing on carbon-based yachts across the Atlantic and back to save the planet in order to slash her carbon footprint was noble, the reality is that she would have lowered the aggregate carbon footprint by jumping a scheduled flight that was taking off anyway. Why, because the boat owners had to fly sailors across the ocean to make it a reality. Yet we can calculate her potential impact:

If we assume Greta’s weight around 35-40kg, it would mean she would add 0.016% to the fuel calculations a Boeing 777 pilot would have to account for. Her impact would be so minuscule as to beggar belief.

280 million trips were made by commercial aircraft last year according to the IATA. Her transatlantic return flight would only be 2 of those meaning she would represent 0.000000714% of all annual flights taken.

Given that airlines, by the IATA’s own stats, annually produce the equivalent to 2% of all man-made emissions or 0.000016% in total, her two flights would make up around 0.0000000000114%. That is slightly unfair as the journey would be longer than most flights (predominantly short-haul). So if e bumped it 4-fold, her return trip would have penalized the planet 0.0000000000007314%.

Thunberg has amassed 3.2m Twitter followers. It is an incredible feat in and of itself. However, FNFM worries that with all of this social media exposure, when none of the prophetic doom and gloom she parrots comes to pass by the deadlines set by climate alarmists, she might realise she has been summarily duped by the very people who have actually “stolen her childhood.”

Unfortunately, she is blissfully blind to being amidst the epicentre of 27,000 hypocritical climate catastrophists at the COP25 summit, most of who flew in to tell us how we all must save the planet (on their behalf). In that sense, it is wonderful to know there is still some innocence left.

If only she knew that her climate change evangelism has thrust the ‘save the planet‘ agenda back on the map, leading to the 21% surge in delegates over the Katowice (COP24) conference. If she wants to fight against those who have “stolen her dreams” they are right in front of her.

Many of her critics suggest she should go back to school. FNFM disagrees. What is the point of sending Greta back to the very institutions that planted the seeds of this Marxist indoctrination in the first place?

To be honest, if we are to submit to the whims of teenagers who know all there is to know, we should close down our universities because there is simply no value in tertiary education, especially now that these centres for open thinking are muzzling it on campus.

Maybe one day, when Greta has a teenager of her own (assuming she doesn’t try to avoid having kids to save the planet), she will see for herself what we knew all along.

As the old saying goes. “Experience is a hard teacher. You get the test first and the lesson afterwards.

Debunking more shameless taxpayer-funded climate alarmist crap from SBS

Yet more ridiculous climate alarmist rubbish was published from the taxpayer-funded SBS claiming we rank dead bottom (true) in one of the lower weighted (it didn’t mention that) categories of the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI). The CCPI measures the emissions, renewable energy share and climate policies of 57 countries and the European Union. It released the document at the COP25 summit to bathe in the spotlight with alarmists pals. Where was the journalistic rigour?

Who were the Aussie based “experts” (activists) the CCPI relied on to provide really in-depth qualitative opinions on our climate policy evaluation?

Doctors for the Environment Australia
Australian Conservation Foundation 
Oxfam
The Australian Institute

All climate activists. Precious little objectivity there. It is isn’t hard to work out why Australia scored a 0.0 on climate policy. Seriously? Any think tank with the remotest thirst for integrity in reporting and data collection should have questioned a zero score.

According to Bloomberg NEF, Australia has the 3rd highest clean energy spend per capita! We spent twice as much as France yet these climate alarmists marked us down because our democracy supported Adani. No doubt the experts just hurled toys out of the pram.

Why can’t the SBS do the slightest bit of fact-checking? What prevents it from reading the document and finding out that the credentials of the experts handing out the lowest score (relative to what?) with a lower weighting in the overall score is pretty low. Note the other three categories are based on actual data, not the whims of activists with an axe to grind against the current Morrison government.

And the summary for Australia was as follows,

National experts observe a lack of progress in these areas with the government failing to clarify how it will meet the country’s insufficient 2030 emission reduction target and inaction in developing a long-term mitigation strategy. While the government is not proposing any further targets for renewable energy beyond 2020, it continues to promote the expansion of fossil fuels and in April 2019 approved the opening of the highly controversial Adani coalmine. Experts note that the new government is an increasingly regressive force in negotiations and has been criticised for its lack of ambition by several Pacific Island nations in the context of this year’s Pacific Island Forum. The dismissal of recent IPCC reports, the government not attending the UN Climate Action Summit in September, and the withdrawal from funding the Green Climate Fund (GCF) underpin the overall very low performance in the Climate Policy category.”

This CCPI document is frankly laughable. Such is its desire to heap scorn and shame on nations, the Top 3 overall rankings were withheld from all nations. CPPI noted,

Still no country performs well enough in all index categories to achieve an overall very high rating in the index. Therefore, once again the first three ranks remain empty.

And would you look at the softball it tossed China,

National experts emphasize that China exerted huge efforts to cut fossil fuels and emissions in a coordinated way, however due to the turbulence of economy and trade still performed under expectation from the international community. Further, the national experts acknowledge that China put a lot of effort to overachieve its 2020 goals in the run-up to national GHG emissions 2030 targets. However, more efforts are needed to be in line with a well below 2°C compatible pathway. As the country is on track to fulfil its targets and promises made in Paris, experts hope that China will increase its targets next year. While the country could further increase its share of renewable energy in the energy mix over recent years, the rating in the Renewable Energy category remains medium. Despite a positive trend, current shares of renewable energy are rated low and national experts critically note the country’s high dependency on coal. By implementing a pilot emission trading scheme, China is showing positive efforts in national climate policy, which leads to a high rating in the Climate Policy category.

So could the CCPI tell us why renewables investment in China has slumped 40% as the government has said it won’t approve any such projects unless it can compete with coal?

USA’s overall emissions & emission per capita have declined since Trump took office but the CCPI could restrain its TDS.

National experts emphasise that the national climate policy has worsened under President Donald Trump’s administration and they highlight the importance of state-level measures. While renewable energy and energy use reduction targets are in place in some states, these vary greatly in terms of strength and implementation. At the international level, the performance completes the picture on a national level, with the US acting as a destructive player in international negotiations on all levels. The very low performance is further underpinned by the Trump administration officially having started the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, due to be finalised on 4 November 2020.

Yep, capitalism has allowed the US to experience declining emissions. No need for a socialist construct to hand over billions of dollars to rent-seekers. CCPI asked more activists including the Union of Concerned Scientists for the US bashing.

Image result for cop25 australia"

So take the CCPI report with all of the irrelevance of its compilation. Based on subjectivity. Just like the 11,000 signatories to a climate emergency, where the site that pushed the narrative overlooked the fact that Mickey Mouse, Aldus Dumbledore and Araminta Aardvark were included.

It is worth quoting Thomas Sowell again,

Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.”

Well done on the SBS for yet more splendid journalistic integrity.

COP 25 Delegates by nation & aspirational virtue

Image result for brown envelopes bribe

Carbon Brief has done an admirable job denoting how many delegates from each country are attending the COP25 boondoggle, sorry, climate conference. It notes,

“The country with the most delegates is, by some distance, Côte d’Ivoire with 348. The West African nation also brought the largest delegation to COP23 in Bonn in 2017 – with 492 participants – and the fourth largest to COP24 in Katowice in 2018, with 208.

Côte d’Ivoire’s delegation is more than 50 people larger than the second-placed country, which is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with 293. The DRC also had the second-largest number of delegates at COP24 (with 237) and the third largest at COP23 (340).”

40.7% of delegates are from Africa. Similar to past years. Clearly, these COP summits create a fantastic opportunity to prey on the guilt of the West. As FNFM noted last year, the correlation with the number of delegates and the corruption index was significant.

India sent 35 to COP25 down from 182 at COP21. China sent 76, down from 326 respectively although it is more likely they sent investment bankers to see which African nation they can bribe to plunder their resources.

Australia has sent only 20 delegates but we should champion the fact that 65% of them were women. We even beat New Zealand’s 19 delegate field which only had 58% women. That should please those with Kiwi envy.

In what should rile the gender equality activists and Trump haters, the Paris Accord spurning Americans had higher proportional female representation than the EU or Norway. So much for capitalist pigs shunning socialist norms!

Syria had 100% female representation with the sole delegate. However the male patriarchy was perpetuated thanks to zero female representation from Pakistan, Yemen, Eritrea, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Mauritius and Libya.

Naturally nothing will come of COP25 until a grandiose statement to tackle the climate emergency (FNFM is surprised the Wollongong City Council hasn’t sent a team after the unanimous declaration to “adopt an aspirational emissions reduction target of zero emissions by 2030 for its own operations“) comes in the death throes of the last day when the most hot air is produced.

Fauxcahontas throws a gutter ball

Democrat presidential nominee Elizabeth Warren was asked at a town hall meeting at a bowling alley about her claims to be Native American. Here is the video of her reply.

Confirming what everyone already knew, Warren said,

I am not a person of color, I am not a citizen of a tribe, and I have apologized for confusion I’ve caused on tribal citizenship, tribal sovereignty, and for any harm that I’ve caused.

Confusion? Hijacking an identity for the sole purpose of advancing one’s career. Couldn’t be much clearer.

Talk about inauthenticity. To try to pin it on her parents for leading her to believe that identity. Imagine the presidential debates if she wins the nomination. Grab your popcorn.

Comrade Corbyn, the next British PM?

Something has been burning in the back of CM’s mind as the UK election looms this week. While polls point to the Tories winning, Corbyn is likely to do way better than what the pundits predict. Could he end up as PM? It is not an impossibility. In fact, the odds are increasingly in his favour. CM thinks Corbyn might actually do it.

While it is true that 1.3mn more people voted to leave in the largest ever democratic process in UK history, almost 13mn people didn’t vote on the basis they probably assumed it was a foregone conclusion. CM fundamentally believes that referendum results should have been respected regardless. Not showing up to vote is no excuse. None-the-less we now have a ‘youthquake’ who are desperate to overturn the referendum result to consider.

Of the 18.6mn that couldn’t vote in the referendum in 2016, official figures suggest that 3.85 million registered to vote between the day the election was called on Oct. 29 and Tuesday’s registration deadline — two-thirds of them under the age of 35. The youth seem far more preoccupied with socialism than their parents. While it is safe to assume that not all of the 13mn that didn’t vote were remainers, the youth could well be a decisive factor.

CM detests pretty much every policy that Corbyn espouses as it would be a total disaster for Britain in terms of future investment and immediate capital flight. Yet young kids being offered free everything lack the lived experiences of pre-Thatcher socialism and the economic calamity that ensued. They are utterly clueless in this respect. Yet Corbyn sings all of the woke causes of climate change, social justice and equal outcomes. They are on his side.

How well do millennials know their tyrants? A CIS study in Australia showed that 58% of millennials had a favourable view of socialism. Unfortunately, 51% did not know who Chairman Mao was. Another 32% did not know Stalin and 42% hadn’t heard of Lenin. If we combine with “know but not familiar” with “don’t know” we see almost 80%, 66% and 74% respectively. Oh how wonderful to learn in school about three men whose social policies led to the deaths of 10s of millions. With Marxist teachers rife throughout academia, Corbyn will have a plentiful stock of willing comrades in his back pocket.

Still, as much as the press smears the socialist opposition leader, UK PM Boris Johnson has been the man who has been looking to avoid confrontation at all costs. Surely if BoJo possessed a winning hand and held a superior manifesto, why wouldn’t he show up on the popular BBC programme hosted by Andrew Neil to state his case? It is a terrible look. Neil eviscerated Johnson without the PM being there to defend himself. Worse for BoJo is that his video went viral. What have you got to hide PM?

Corbyn could well snatch victory.  If the Tories take the attitude of former PM Theresa May’s snap election in June 2017 they should beware the barking electorate. Don’t forget how well Corbyn did in that fight.

CM stated in May 2017 the following,

“The first thought to come across CM’s head when Theresa May called this [June] election was, “bad idea.” This hubris she’d romp home may prove yet again how out of touch many politicians are with their constituents and how one must never believe in polls. I think she scrapes home but for now, wants the nightmare over.”

History revealed she scraped home with the help of the DUP. The EU has masterfully engineered delay after delay to keep the ‘remain’ dream alive. Now the youth have gathered steam as registered voters, they could well hand the EU a gift that will keep its Ponzi scheme alive.

When will politicians realise that being less worse no longer cuts it with the electorate? They are sick of the self-interest of the political class. They want to blow it up. Johnson has not looked good and the Brexit Party, which might have smashed the European elections, looks as though it does not have the traction it had hoped for. It could underwhelm.

Many of the Labour MPs may have ignored their elderly constituents but it would be a safe bet to say that the ultimate outcome in these so-called “betrayed” constituencies is anything but a doe deal to shun them.

Polls are damned near useless now. They failed to predict Trump. Failed to pick Brexit. Why put faith that the UK pollsters are any closer to the mark?

Politics is a random walk. Trudeau managed to cling on to power in Canada despite being found guilty of two breaches of conflicts of interest, blackface, cultural appropriation and many other gaffes. Clearly, it didn’t matter enough, just as “p*ssy grabbing” didn’t impact Trump in 2016.

Therefore CM expects a much higher chance of a Corbyn PM-ship or at the very least a parliament that puts us straight back where we were before the election – a hung parliament with no rudder and a Brexit that is watered down in such a way that it achieves nothing in the way of that originally intended.

CM sincerely hopes he is wrong on Corbyn. He would be an economic disaster at a time the Tories would have left a troubling fiscal legacy that is nothing to write home about.

If Corbyn wins, the UK will face severe capital flight. The pound will tank. A second referendum will be put forward. The outcomes will be dire. This is not being hysteric in any way. The markets are simply not pricing it in at all.

At least Sir James Dyson of vacuum cleaner fame saw the light. He is a Brexiteer but his lack of faith in the process has already seen him relocate the HQ to Singapore. Many more would follow. After all, if Corbyn wants to control the behaviour of British business on the FTSE and nationalise utilities it will hardly be a fertile ground to invest.

500 loony law professors willfully blind

This is the letter written by 500+ law professors/lecturers who conformed to the group think on impeachment. The ultimate joke is that they have co-signed a document where it explicitly says,

We take no position on whether the President committed a crime…it does not depend on what Congress has chosen to criminalize.

Sorry? Does that mean they’re willing to sign up to a document that tries to out themselves as woke defenders of justice yet can’t put a name to pinning anything on Trump? Only further evidence that once venerable tertiary institutions are incapable of balanced views. Proof that education is now actually worth pennies on the dollar in exorbitant school fees. How funny they threw their own party under the bus by confirming the Dems are trying to criminalize something they won’t.

If these whackademics think American voters will take this letter with any more serious than a Hollywood celebrity they are kidding themselves.

Read it and weep. Guaranteed Democrat supporters.

———

We, the undersigned legal scholars, have concluded that President Trump engaged in impeachable conduct.

We, the undersigned legal scholars, have concluded that President Trump engaged in impeachable conduct.

We do not reach this conclusion lightly. The Founders did not make impeachment available for disagreements over policy, even profound ones, nor for extreme distaste for the manner in which the President executes his office. Only “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” warrant impeachment. But there is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help him distort an American election, for his personal and political benefit, at the direct expense of national security interests as determined by Congress. His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the Founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution.

We take no position on whether the President committed a crime. But conduct need not be criminal to be impeachable. The standard here is constitutional; it does not depend on what Congress has chosen to criminalize.

Impeachment is a remedy for grave abuses of the public trust. The two specific bases for impeachment named in the Constitution — treason and bribery — involve such abuses because they include conduct undertaken not in the “faithful execution” of public office that the Constitution requires, but instead for personal gain (bribery) or to benefit a foreign enemy (treason).

Impeachment is an especially essential remedy for conduct that corrupts elections. The primary check on presidents is political: if a president behaves poorly, voters can punish him or his party at the polls. A president who corrupts the system of elections seeks to place himself beyond the reach of this political check. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason described impeachable offenses as “attempts to subvert the constitution.” Corrupting elections subverts the process by which the Constitution makes the president democratically accountable. Put simply, if a President cheats in his effort at re-election, trusting the democratic process to serve as a check through that election is no remedy at all. That is what impeachment is for.

Moreover, the Founders were keenly concerned with the possibility of corruption in the president’s relationships with foreign governments. That is why they prohibited the president from accepting anything of value from foreign governments without Congress’s consent. The same concern drove their thinking on impeachment. James Madison noted that Congress must be able to remove the president between elections lest there be no remedy if a president betrayed the public trust in dealings with foreign powers.

In light of these considerations, overwhelming evidence made public to date forces us to conclude that President Trump engaged in impeachable conduct. To mention only a few of those facts: William B. Taylor, who leads the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, testified that President Trump directed the withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid for Ukraine in its struggle against Russia — aid that Congress determined to be in the U.S. national security interest — until Ukraine announced investigations that would aid the President’s re-election campaign. Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified that the President made a White House visit for the Ukrainian president conditional on public announcement of those investigations. In a phone call with the Ukrainian president, President Trump asked for a “favor” in the form of a foreign government investigation of a U.S. citizen who is his political rival. President Trump and his Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney made public statements confirming this use of governmental power to solicit investigations that would aid the President’s personal political interests. The President made clear that his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was central to efforts to spur Ukrainian investigations, and Mr. Giuliani confirmed that his efforts were in service of President Trump’s private interests.

Ultimately, whether to impeach the President and remove him from office depends on judgments that the Constitution leaves to Congress. But if the House of Representatives impeached the President for the conduct described here and the Senate voted to remove him, they would be acting well within their constitutional powers. Whether President Trump’s conduct is classified as bribery, as a high crime or misdemeanor, or as both, it is clearly impeachable under our Constitution.
Signed,*
——

Biden’s vote-winning strategy

Always a useful show of character when one has to use ad hominem attacks – weight, fitness, age and intelligence to defend a position against an 83-yo. And no, Trump is no saint when it comes to hurling insults. Although the difference between Trump & Biden is that the former is well known for that persona from his reality TV days whereas the latter is trying to deny his bitterness which extends to challenging an octagenarian to a push-up contest.

Yet none of it really matters. The most revealing sign of Joe Biden’s campaign is that Barack Obama, the man who called him the “best vice president America has ever had” and bestowed upon him a Presidential Medal of Freedom, has said absolutely nothing to support him in his presidential campaign. Tells us all we need to know.

But it gets worse. Rasmussen Reports noted, “59% of Democrats say it’s important for their party to choose a woman or person of colour as their presidential or vice-presidential nominee, including 26% who feel it’s Very Important.

Now that Harris is out and Elizabeth Warren is taking, what will they do if a cantankerous old jock gets the nomination?