Doctrinal Differences

Doctrinal DifferencesDoctrinal Differences

Yes, there are some very simple, yet very stark and fundamental, doctrinal differences between the Obama Regime and President Trump’s Administration when it comes to overall foreign policy and America’s place in the world at large. We had the Obama Doctrine, which was essentially one of conciliation, self-deprecation, and one long string of apologies to the world at large. Now we have the Trump Doctrine, which seems to one of standing strong, and alone if needs be, and warning our enemies and opponents that they’ll be sorry if they cross America.

Obviously, the differences between the two doctrines is stark. They’re almost polar opposites and quite antithetical to each other. Hence, one coming in immediately upon the other’s being over is glaring to see and jarring to experience. That, however, is not the seminal point of this article.

Please realize that the title of this post, “Doctrinal Differences,” is quite deliberate. This is not a purely political or geopolitical difference. It’s more of a difference in sincerely held beliefs, of particular and differing faiths in what is the right way forward. quite literally, it is a sectarian schism.

That’s very important to realize and internalize because there’s another, far harsher and more potentially dangerous way to describe doctrinal differences – heresy. And any of us who study today’s world and/or history know what happens to heretics…

Related Reading:

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
Strengths Based Leadership: Great Leaders, Teams, and Why People Follow
Galaxy in Flames (The Horus Heresy)
The Making of Donald Trump
America's First Daughter: A Novel

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |

Adieu Et Bon Débarras

Adieu Et Bon Débarras, Paris!

Adieu Et Bon Débarras, Paris!

Goodby and good riddance, Paris – specifically the The Paris Agreement which was brokered in France during the COP 21 talks. All the signs are present that President Trump will remove America from this Climate Change Agreement. Once again proving he’s a political outsider, strongly looks as if Trump will keep yet another campaign promise.

I’m happy with this and our domestic enemies are livid over it – weeping, wailing, gnashing their teeth, and promising retribution. I will, however give these Liberals and Progressives a small measure of credit this time. This isn’t just another episode of their derangement. President Trump pulling America out of Paris Agreement is apocalyptic for their hopes and dreams of a “greener,” weaker America.

And yes! I’m big enough to admit that I’m petty and mean enough so that a significant part of my happiness with leaving the Paris Agreement is that the Left is so butt-hurt over doing so.

Here, however, is one important point, though not the key point for me: This Paris Agreement isn’t actually that horrific from my point of view. It is and was largely meaningless and without any provisions – or even delusions thereof – of any of its various articles being actually binding or enforceable upon the the 196 signatories. In this it is a lot like NATO.

Is It A Treaty Or Not?

No. My primary reason for being happy about leaving the Paris Agreement is that it really wasn’t legally enacted in the first place or, at least, it was easily arguable that it wasn’t. This is because it’s a treaty or, at least it certainly seems to meet the legal requirement for being one, and Obama just signed it as if he were king without ever sending it to the Senate for ratification, which is constitutionally required. So, if it is a treaty, it is not one that America ever entered into and President Trump would just be correcting an illegal act by Obama.

Then again, some legal experts argue that the Paris Agreement isn’t a treaty, despite it easily meeting the prima facie standard of such under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law” (VCLT art. 2.1(a)) is a treaty. It was, after all, specially and specifically crafted to not be a treaty so that it didn’t need to undergo the required scrutiny by the various states that such things entail. In other words, it was written in a manner that Obama could sign it unilaterally under the auspices of the UNFCCC, instead of sending to the Senate for approval. So it could be argued that this was just an Executive Agreement under the law.

If the latter is held to be true, this is ironic in the extreme since Obama’s signing the Paris Agreement violated the 1992 Executive Agreement with the Senate to submit for their review and ratification any future agreements which contained “targets and timetables” for emissions reductions by the US.

So, there it is. Either it’s a treaty; in which case, it’s null and void due to its unconstitutional and illegal enactment; or it’s simply an Executive Agreement by Obama; in which case, it ceased being binding on January 20th, 2017 and President Trump is well and completely within his rights to either formally rescind our nation’s participation or simply ignore it in whole or in part and to do so for any or no reason whatsoever.

Either way, President Trump would be doing the right thing in my opinion. Whether it was executive overreach on Obama’s part or his simply violating the agreement under which the Senate ratified the UNFCCC in the first place, putting an end to it would the right thing.

Related Reading:

Understanding Trump
The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America
The Paris Agreement: Climate Change, Solidarity, and Human Rights
World Order
Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia: English Translation

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

CNN’s Consistent Bias

The Lamestream Enemedia's Fake News Is A Capella Agitpop
CNN’s Consistent Bias

Recently, President Donald Trump delivered a speech to the leaders of more than 50 countries of the Muslim World to outline his vision for US-Muslim relations. President Trump’s 36-minute long address at the Gulf Cooperation Council Summit was the centerpiece of a two-day visit to Saudi Arabia, his first overseas mission as president.

So of course, CNN, the world’s #1 purveyor of fake news, report of this even was, “On Islam, Trump is consistently inconsistent,” totally disregarding the simple fact that there was little to nothing in President Trump’s address to the Muslim political leaders that varied even in tone from many statements made by Obama over the course of the previous eight years – statements that CNN lauded as being “considered,” “nuanced,” and as showing an understanding of the complexities of dealing with terrorist groups who operate under the banner of Islam.

Got to give CNN some small measure of credit though. They are consistent – consistent in the anti-Trump and anti-American bias.

Related Reading:

FAKE NEWS
One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate, and the Not-Yet Deported
Understanding Trump
Media Bias?: A Comparative Study of Time, Newsweek, the National Review, and the Progressive, 1975-2000 (Lexington Studies in Political Communication)
Being Muslim: A Practical Guide

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |