Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
I’ve stated before what the Democrats’ plan for America’s agricultural sector is. But the image above depicts the specific goals of the Climatards among Americans’ domestic enemies and the Green Utopia that they want to fundamentally transform our nation into. That is, of course, when they’re not demanding that we simply outsource resource extraction and its concomitant pollution to “developing nations.”
Yes, these are the useful idiots that are, themselves being farmed by Democrat politicians, certain groups within the deep state that want better budgets and more job security, and the Leftists that long ago turned the entirety of Global Warming into an attack upon Western prosperity in an attempt to distribute our wealth to those others that they prefer.
Yeah, not only do electric vehicles (EVs) normally cost about 20% more than either their traditional and hybrid counterparts, the cost of replacing their battery pack/deck is way more than anything normal people would condone. For now, that sort of makes me laugh, since it’s harming the Liberals, Progressives, and other Ecotards and Warmists who want to signal their virtue and orthodoxy by buying and conspicuously driving one.
The way I’ve always figured things, if you want to harm yourself for your faith, cool; more power to you and, even if we’re enemies, I have, do, and will always respect you for your sacrifice. I mean, I’ll be annoyed by your incessant proselytizing and virtue signalling, but I will always acknowledge that you put your faith first, before you comfort or material success.
But the problem is that these Warmists who are apparently shaping the domestic policies of the Democrat party are not in the least bit satisfied with practicing their religion. Oh no! As creatures like Biden and the other Dems in political power have shown, these Warmists have their own Great Commission and certainly don’t hesitate to enact Conversion by the Sword.
Why do you think Biden forced unprecedented fuel prices upon we, the People? Why do you think that SCOTUS had to explicitly tell the EPA that they couldn’t force the governments of the individual states to change their power production to something “green”?
This is America. If the Left wants to sacrifice their wealth and freedoms for the sake of their religion of Global Warming, fine! If they want to preach their faith in or on the streets? Fine! It’s when they try to force their face upon others that we have a problem.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 26th, 2022 at 5:00 am and is filed under Politics, Religion, Society, The Environment.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
The above image fairly aptly sums up the frustration one experiences whenever one makes the mistake of engaging one of the Liberals or Progressives on the matter of Climate Change.
Despite their hysteria and existential panic, they will allow no practical solution to the problem they believe in… because the problem isn’t really a problem. It’s just a means by which to enact some form of “redistributive justice,”Â i.e., steal from the productive in order to give hand outs to the eaters and takers feeding off of America.
The roots of Global Warming, as certain sorts have been trying to sell it for over a decade, is simply Socialism in the context of the Globalists’ meta-State. It’s just an excuse to strip wealth and power from the “Privileged” societies and redistribute it to the Third World.
As we come into the 2018 elections, it’s critical for the American people to keep this firmly in mind. The “intersectionality” between the Warmists and the Socialists cannot be overstated any more than it can be untangled. They are at this point the same enemy of America.
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 â€œan international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international lawâ€ (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.