Paris Agreement: Climategate 3.0
I broke the Climategate story seven and a half years ago. That's right: I did it. In this article I discuss how--while also discussing what was so bad about the Paris Agreement, how even the foremost activists didn't like it (they didn't think it went far enough), and how most of the parties to the agreement don't even believe their own narrative--because they won't act like it!
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/0...
Birth control is easy and cheap. It just takes a decision, by the woman, NOT the man (it's none of his business and if he REALLY wants a child, adopt one) to take control.
The "too many people" issue is plausible but not likely. Consider, all of the current population of the earth would only fill 1/5th of the Grand Canyon.
I'd like to see a report naming the RINO senators so we can work on making this happen in 2018.
Pragmatism is the philosophy of William James, Charles Peirce and John Dewey that has increasingly dominated American thought and politics for a century. It is the foundation of Progressivism with its premise that government power is a "tool" for whatever you want to accomplish. It holds that truth is whatever "works" and that what is true today need not be true tomorrow. It is against principle on principle.
Your cynical, 'nothing wrong with" being a Pragmatist, take what you can when you "find" yourself able to get away with it, isn't even civilized. It is not what Atlas Shrugged is about.
Obama "fullfilled promises", too. It matters what they are. Trump's are typically vague and contradictory the more he talks, including major issues like the promised repeal of Obamacare now turning into a Republican version of government entitlements and control. Trump is an emotional thinker who lacks the principles and understanding necessary to "promise" anything meaningful. The Trump idolizers don't know the difference.
They have also failed to reform taxes as Trump pushes for what amounts to a national sales tax on imports, Trump is now pushing his massive "infrastructure" spending plans as the biggest "monument builder" of them all, and he has put the revocation of Obama's National Monument decrees on hold in a 'study'.
But he didn't seem to understand why or show any understanding what the criteria for a judge should be, only emoting over Gorsuch's academic background with names and titles that impressed him.
During the campaign he promised to appoint judges who will overturn the right of abortion, which he may or may not have done. Who knows what the next one will be -- anything from conservative religious zealot to progressive in order to pander to one pressure group or another for whatever he emotionally feels works at the political moment ('You got one now it's their turn')?
As for the rescinding, he hasn't revoked many (most?) of Obama Executive Orders. In particular he hasn't rescinded the National Monument decrees he campaigned against (when he wasn't swooning over "Federal lands").
http://unfccc.int/files/essential_bac...
Frankly, I found nothing in it that threatens me, my livelihood, or my freedoms and liberties.
Have you forgotten what Henry Rearden says in Part 2 ("Either-or") of Atlas Shrugged? "You do not serve the public good. Nobody's good is ever served by human sacrifice. When you violate the rights of one, you violate the rights of all. And a country of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction."
Do tell this community what objective good the Paris Agreement would have served. In other words, show, if you can, just cause why President Trump should not have acted as he did.
However, the temptation is there for activist judges in the U.S. to treat it as settled law, and force businesses and states to abide by the provisions created to meet our goals under the accord. By formally announcing we do not consider ourselves a legal party to the accord, it removes that justification for endless litigation.
Rest assured, if Clinton had become President, her administration would have pressed for doubling down on all the Obama promises under the accord. She already vowed to significantly increase our intake of refugees, so I have no doubt she would have felt compelled to accelerate the shutdown of the fossil fuel industry and increase the subsidizing of renewable power.
The accord is just part of a globalist authoritarian grab for control over individual freedom. In practice it very much would have been an assault over your livelihood, freedoms, and liberties.
Herr Doktor Josef Goebbels famously said if you tell a big-enough lie, people will believe it, on the erroneous theory that some lies are just too big to tell. I know otherwise.