The Democratic Party's ultimate coup d'etat

With Congress mercifully in recess, America is spared – at least for now – from any more Democratic impeachment psychosis. Something to be thankful for.

However, remember that before the Ukraine-gate impeachment hysteria descended like a huge radioactive cloud engulfing Washington, D.C., the really big issue preoccupying America's governmental and media elites was "climate change," characterized by ever-more-apocalyptic predictions of extinction and planetary destruction.

To most Americans, the climate change issue revolves around a scientific and political debate over global climate trends and the role of carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activities.

In reality, climate change and its proposed solutions comprise the far left's secret weapon – its atomic bomb – for destroying capitalism and America's existing social and economic order and replacing it with an entirely new utopian, globalist, socialist order.

So let's take a quick look beyond the current smokescreen of impeachment mania and focus on the real ongoing coup d'etat – the attempted overthrow not just of President Donald Trump, but of America.

Right now, as you read these words, millions of American school kids are terrified, anxious and depressed as a result of being indoctrinated via sensational "news stories" quoting "experts" who insist human-caused global warming will soon lead to the end of life on earth as we know it.

Perhaps these unfortunate children, scared out of their wits, would relax a little if they realized that the news media have been utterly enthralled with tales of catastrophic climate change for well over 100 years.

Way back in 1895 – when Grover Cleveland was president, "America the Beautiful" was first published and the sport of volleyball had just been created – the New York Times announced the coming of a new ice age. Americans were in danger of freezing to death.

But that was just the beginning.

Incredibly, since then, top U.S. journalism organizations have been swept up into four different eras of near hysteria over supposedly imminent climate crises, each prediction citing "scientists" and "climate experts" authoritatively warning that seas will rise, entire nations will be wiped out and – of course – "billions will die."

Those early concerns over a new ice age "lasted well into the late 1920s," report R. Warren Anderson and Dan Gainor in "Fire and Ice," an in-depth historical retrospective of media obsession with climate change. Then suddenly, the "climate experts" changed gears:

But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

Advertisement - story continues below

After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.

The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. … In 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”

With the repeated swings between warnings of the earth burning up and freezing over, no wonder the "global warming" label has more recently given way to the much more flexible all-purpose phrase, "climate change."

What does the science actually say?

A few key questions that never seem to be objectively and honestly discussed in public, at least not by climate alarmists and socialist revolutionaries:

What about the actual science? Is climate change (or global warming) actually real – and if so, how real? How much is the earth warming and over what period of time? Is that necessarily bad? What negative effects can reasonably be anticipated from this warming trend? To what degree is global warming caused by human activity, and how much do all the fantastically expensive and disruptive "Green New Deal"-type human efforts to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions actually help? And is the trade-off worth it?

One more question: How is it that only people on the left – those scientific geniuses who believe a man is a woman and a baby isn't a baby five minutes before birth – can understand and expertly sort out the complicated, inconclusive and sometimes contradictory science of long-term climate prediction?

Let's go back one more time to the late nineteenth century when our elite class's panic over climate change first surfaced in the major news media.

Since 1880, according to both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA, the earth's overall temperature has reportedly increased by – drum roll, please – approximately 2 degrees Fahrenheit. That's 1 degree Celsius.

Moreover, despite all the hysteria over fires in the Amazon rainforest, the earth, ironically, is getting greener every day. As Village News Publisher Julie Reeder explained in late September:

The world is literally greener than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage. A new study on NASA’s website shows that China and India are leading the increase in greening on land. The study shows it’s partly the result from ambitious tree-planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries.

Ranga Myneni of Boston University and colleagues first detected the greening phenomenon in satellite data from the mid-1990s, but they did not know whether human activity was a chief cause. They set out to track the total amount of Earth’s land area covered by vegetation and how it changed over time.

The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5% since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25% of that gain came in China. Overall, one-third of Earth’s vegetated lands are greening, while 5% are growing browner. The study was published Feb. 11, 2019, in the journal Nature Sustainability.

It gets even more surreal. As Reeder notes, geologist Gregory Wrightstone in his acclaimed new book "Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know," "points to a greener earth because of higher carbon emissions, which plants feed on, causing plant growth at a greater rate." She adds:

According to Wrightstone, this additional greening causes greater moisture in the air through transpiration, also aiding in the growth of plants and trees. Wrightstone said that this greening is partly the result of fossil fuel emissions and that, in fact, the earth can handle six times more carbon dioxide emissions than there is right now.

Almost 27 years after the United Nations adopted the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, many scientists now say there is no crisis caused by climate change and it’s actually a deliberate misrepresentation of facts.

Indeed, in late September, more than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields signed a letter to the United Nations saying "There is no climate emergency."

"Climate science," their declaration reads, "should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation."

The scientists added: "There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests."

Since there is no "climate emergency," they conclude, "there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050."

"If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world," they state.

The scientists say the climate models on which virtually all the apocalyptic predictions are based are utterly flawed. "It is cruel as well as imprudent," they say, "to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power."

The 500 scientists signing the declaration end with this: “We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation."

'How do you change the entire economy?'

Journalists have long gravitated toward sensational end-of-the-world stories for one banal and obvious reason; it increases viewership. "If it bleeds it leads."

But what about the motivations of politicians and climate activists, especially in our increasingly "progressive" modern era, when powerful collectivist and globalist impulses secretly animate so many of our elected and unelected officials?

Such leftwing politicians – including not only unabashed socialists like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, but virtually the entire lineup of Democratic Party 2020 presidential hopefuls – have a much more grandiose and revolutionary, almost religious, motivation for continually terrifying Americans about the imminent doom they predict will result from climate change "unless you do as we say."

Their plan is for the forces of the progressive left to take total control of America and wipe away what they regard as the greedy, capitalist, racist, Christian, constitutionally limited nation state, so rife with inequality – in reality the freest, most enlightened and successful governmental system in history – and to replace it with an entirely new and alien system, namely socialism, which has always, with zero exceptions, failed miserably.

Does this sound hyperbolic? Consider that the person who has done more than anyone else to propel climate change to the forefront of recent news cycles and who introduced the "Green New Deal" to America, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, posted a document online explaining the program. It is nothing short of a blueprint for a complete socialist, globalist new world order.

Such a radical transformation of America – from rebuilding every structure in the country to crippling America's fossil fuel industries – is necessary to save us from extinction in the near term, claim true believers in the "Green New Deal." Or so we're told.

But wait.

What if the Green New Deal is not about remedying the supposed catastrophic effects of climate change? What if it's all just a ploy, a Trojan horse designed to bring about a full-scale socialist revolution in America?

It turns out, that's exactly what Ocasio-Cortez' own former chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti – widely acknowledged as the brains behind the socialist New York congresswoman – revealed during a recent media interview: The real purpose of the Green New Deal is to turn America socialist.

In a story reported by the Washington Post, Chakrabarti stunningly admitted: "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?" asked Chakrabarti. "Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

We are beholding one of the greatest hoaxes in world history.

Make no mistake. It may be tempting to dismiss Ocasio-Cortez, whose arrogance is exceeded only by her ignorance. But just beyond this colorful public character with the bright red lipstick is the entire elite globalist left, which for decades has been dreaming and scheming about implementing their precious socialist new world order.

And they think now is finally their time.

But first, they have to get rid of the great disrupter of their plans: President Donald J. Trump.

The preceding is David Kupelian’s introductory story in the current issue of Whistleblower magazine, titled "GREEN NEW STEAL: The Democrat Party's ultimate coup d'etat."

Whistleblower – which legendary radio talk-show host Barry Farber has called "an incredibly brilliant magazine" – is WND’s flagship subscription product. Becoming a subscriber is one of the very best ways to provide much-needed support to WND, while in return receiving some of our most powerful information and insights every month. Whistleblower is available in both PRINT and DIGITAL versions, and has for years been WND's most popular GIFT.