Obama’s Climate Change Rhetoric to Displace Louisiana Community
By Grayson Schultze - May 04, 2016

In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced grants totaling $1 billion in 13 states to help communities adapt to climate change, by building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems.One of those grants, $48 million for Isle de Jean Charles, is something new: the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the impacts of climate change. – The New York Times

Last week, we highlighted how The New York Times shared Obama’s economic legacy. That Times article discussed the Keynesian fallacies and wishes of increased government spending, but was only from the perspective of the power center in D.C.

This Times article paints a suffering face – one far outside of D.C. – to gain support from sympathetic readers and to show the deeds of the federal government do-gooders. By blending poor, southern Louisiana women’s stories of how climate change has affected their lives with the ensuing need for federal support in this region, the Times has created a perfect recipe for big government interventions – and how Obama has supposedly been right all along, on both accounts.

To the rationally thinking portion of the population, an alternative analysis reveals that there are several stories here. First, the debunking of the flawed climate change science. Second, the federal government’s integral role in remedying these man-made changes. And third, the dissolution of independence for communities and individuals within these communities in favor of government paternalism.    

Covering the findings of climatologists in any depth is beyond the scope of this article. The disagreement on climate data, the absence of a holistic methodological study, and the problem of isolating man-made independent variables from the planet’s naturally occurring cycles cannot conclusively prove that climate change lies solely with humanity’s progress over the last couple hundred years.

In fact, even buried in this Times article is a mention of other variables aside from climate change that have impacted rising waters around Isle de Jean Charles:

Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes.

The result of these activities is indicative of the lack of private property and government. The old tragedy of the commons rears its ugly head. If companies were directly responsible to a private landowner for erosion damage without any margin for error that the government allows, the situation may be different. If individuals, not governments, could take charge of their lands’ surrounding waterways and implement innovative defenses to at least partially protect against hurricanes’ devastating effects, the situation may be different.

Fundamentally, the role of climatologists must be scrutinized. Unlike chemists, biologists, and physicists whose discoveries are data-driven through the scientific method, climatologists must begin with their conclusions and then work backwards to make the data fit. If climate change is a hoax, what would be the use in climatologists?

And climatologists’ inherent political connections should be questioned. The Times dives into these waters by labeling those most affected by future climate change as “refugees.” With this designation, the implication is that it is not individuals who have to act. Individual action will not suffice. Governments must do so.

The most tangible, tragic element of the climate change narrative is seen in the minds of those supposedly affected by its forces. The human interest stories in the Times article are convinced that the federal government has an obligation to assist them. Centuries – even decades – ago, people would have exercised individual responsibility and moved on their own.

Now, papa Obama and his family of bureaucrats will take care of them. They’re ready to take care of more. “We see this [Isle de Jean Charles] as setting a precedent for the rest of the country,” said Marion McFadden of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. But, no need to worry about the costs to taxpayers, as McFadden is “cognizant of the obligation to taxpayers to not throw good money after bad.”


Despite inconclusive data on climate change, governments, with the assistance of the mainstream media narrative, are accelerating their battle against the phenomenon. Climate change is being used to increase federal spending, grow the size of government, and cement the dangerous, paternalistic notion that government has a role in nearly every aspect of individual’s lives.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

  • Bruce C.

    According to the Lawrence Lindsey, from his book “Conspiracies of the Ruling Class”, one of the main problems with the US Federal government is that bureaucratic departments and agencies have been set up to handle affairs and make decisions that are Constitutionally the responsibilities of the Congress. According to him, Congress now controls only about 30% of what they are Constitutionally mandated to control. Recognizing this provides a way to make significant changes in the nature and structure of the US government. The key legal point is that Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to delegate its responsibilities, and so the myriad departments and agencies cannot be operating without Congress’ knowledge and approval. It’s a matter only of political will to restructure things, not a legal one.

    This process of usurping congressional control began with Woodrow Wilson as a purposeful act to get around the Constitution. Even then “technocracy” was used as the argument and justification for allowing Congress to delegate some of its authority to bureaucratic “experts”. The experts being invisible, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats could then operate under the radar and decide, initiate and allow any number of things that Congress would probably never approve – either because it’s just too nutty and “unConstitutional” or that voters wouldn’t want. Ironically, that is precisely why Congress allowed the technocratic departments to form, because they didn’t want the responsibility and accountability for certain decisions.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development is a classic example of the kind of agency I’m talking about. Marion McFadden is an un-elected technocratic bureaucrat who may be considered an “expert” (and most likely an arrogant, ignorant, big-government, narcisstic, big-government advocate do-gooder and a-hole as well.) The role of the US Federal government is in part being decided by people like that, and the role of the HUD is being completely decided. Congress controls only their budget. Obviously, things are arranged – similar to Planned Parenthood – for HUD to do certain political popular things but also other things that most people don’t even know about. Threaten to de-fund HUD and you hear about making old people homeless.

    That kind of crap has got to stop. There is no way to win the argument against climate change but there are ways to keep the US government from using its resources in ways that most voters don’t approve of and have no way of controlling. Hence the Trump “movement” (my plug for Trump for today.) Break up the myriad departments and agencies based on their unConstitutional structures and force Congress to make decisions that are open and accountable. (Notice that the argument is NOT that the departments are DOING unConstitutional things – though they may be, but that’s not the legal argument here. It is that they are doing what Congress is required to do, and COngress cannot delegate their authority.) If some of the actions proposed to “counteract” climate change are presented in the full light of day they will likely not survive scrutiny, and even if they do at least everyone will be aware of how their resources are being used.

    • alaska3636

      Constitutional freedom derived from the universal negative rights are being (have been) usurped by narrow-minded do-gooders and busy-bees. Intuitive and subtle (yet powerful) concepts like decentralized knowledge, (dis)incentives of positive rights institutions, ratchet effects and market forces have been systematically removed from the zeitgeist in favor of neologisms regarding Science and social justice.

      I think Trump might be an actualized form of cognitive dissonance; an unconscious response that something has been amiss for awhile. I also think that it is possible that the momentum of the status quo keeps Hillary as the front runner so long as her health holds out. It would be a rare event for a people to collectively choose truth and hardship over the promise of an easy out. Maybe if the pearl-clutchers move in a sufficiently libertarian direction, guilt about the state of the world left for the children might get the bums and their epistemogically baseless ideas out of power for good.

      Moving forward, I am in favor of the Jeffersonian sunset provision regarding the churn of laws every generation; how else to keep people sufficiently well-off from sliding down the lazy slope?

      • Steven Hotho

        I am really impressed with these two comments. I wish these gentlemen were candidates for something important. I think alaska is absolutely correct that Trump represents something inchoate in American culture that’s responding to disorganization and decay. The protagonist may be too flawed to capitalize on it, but at least it’s now coming to the fore and the issues are being joined. May the genie never be put back into the bottle.

  • Bill W

    As usual, where are the Republicans?? No where to be found!!!

  • alaska3636

    Now climate change may or may not be removing oxygen from the ocean.

    “Due to global warming, less amount of oxygen is reaching under the surface of water and making it difficult for marine animals to survive, revealed the study led by oceanographer Matthew Long.”

    Of course, right before the pearl clutching, there is this slight hedge:
    “Oxygen levels also faces natural fluctuations and at times, researchers aren’t able to clearly state if the drop in oxygen level is due to climate change or natural phenomenon.”

    Also, Elon Musk is still pumping out cars nobody wants or can afford:
    ““Tesla is going to be hellbent on becoming the best manufacturer on earth,” Musk said. “It’s easy to get wrapped up in a bunch of short-term issues, but in terms of what matters for the future, I think that’s the most critical thing.””

    If you believe that the elite telegraph their plans through known media outlets, this is telling.

  • blackberry8

    As suggested by Mencken, just another “hobgoblin” requiring government protection. Some things never change.

  • r2bzjudge

    Virtually every news story on climate is negative. Reality is obviously different than the narrative being sold.

    Climate change alarmism isn’t about climate, it is about politics. Warmer or colder doesn’t make any difference. Natural or unnatural doesn’t make any difference. The leftist claim still would be that government has to do something, just as the claim that government had to do something to make college more affordable. L.A. Mayor Garcetti is now proposing to offer a year of free community college to all LAUSD graduates. This is in response to government making college more affordable, to the point that it is now unaffordable.