THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
On October 3, President Obama schmoozed with actor Leonardo DiCaprio on the South Lawn of the White House, telling DiCaprio: “We’re really in a race against time,” to prevent what he perceives as the worst affects of climate change.
Obama’s remarks came in the midst of a day-long fair and musical event that led up to the U.S. premiere of Before the Flood, a National Geographic documentary on climate change that DiCaprio starred in and produced with the admitted goal of influencing public opinion on the issue of climate change.
The movie premiere was preceded by an hour-long panel discussion, where DiCaprio introduced both the president and Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. During the introductions, DiCaprio revealed his agenda by stating that he and director Fisher Stevens wanted their film “to be released before this upcoming election because after firsthand experiencing the devastating impacts of climate change worldwide, we, like many of you here today, realize that urgent action must be taken.”
“This moment is more important than ever. We must empower leaders who not only believe in climate change but are willing to do something about it,” DiCaprio was quoted as saying by the Washington Post. “The scientific consensus is in, and the argument is now over. If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts, or in science, or empirical truths, and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.”
However, DiCaprio’s assertion that “the scientific consensus is in, and the argument is now over” contradicts the views of many respected environmental scientists who have stated that climate change (whether warming or cooling) is a natural cyclical occurrence and is not attributable to anthropogenic (human) causes.
The New American has published numerous articles citing statements from scientists who maintain that even natural global warming has reversed itself during recent years and what warming has occurred is reflective of the Earth’s natural climatic cycles. While space permits only a brief sampling of such articles, one of the most comprehensive was “Meet the Climate Realists,” published last January, which compiled “a short sampling of the tens of thousands of rational and reputable scientists who maintain an unbiased skepticism toward AGW [anthropogenic global warming], even at the risk of acquiring the career-jeopardizing slur of ‘denier.’”
Among the scientists profiled in that article were:
• Richard Lindzen, Ph.D, emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, and a leading expert on climate dynamics and global heat transport. Lindzen has expressed his opinion of human-caused catastrophic global warming quite plainly: “It’s just nonsense,” he stated at a November climate summit hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. “Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best, and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.”
• Patrick Moore, Ph.D, who co-founded Greenpeace in 1971, and spent the next 15 years as a director of Greenpeace International, earning a worldwide reputation as an environmental leader. However, Moore parted ways with Greenpeace over a scandal that ensued when the organization convinced some Latin American countries to remove chlorine” from their drinking water, resulting in a cholera epidemic in 1991. At a recent Texas Public Policy Foundation climate summit, Moore declared, “Let’s celebrate CO2!” He called it “the foundation of life on earth” and pointed out that “the deserts are greening from rising CO2.”
• Art Robinson, Ph.D, the co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and editor of the monthly newsletter Access to Energy. He is a member of the Global Warming Petition Project, which produced a document signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists. The document states, in part:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
A review of the “related articles” listed below will provide many more examples of respected scientists disagreeing with the “climate change” establishment, which predicts disastrous global warming and rising seas if the world’s industrial operations continue to emit “greenhouse gasses.”
Internationalists and climate alarmists are freaking out after the new president of the Philippines, firebrand Rodrigo Duterte (shown), blasted the controversial United Nations “climate” regime and vowed to ignore its restrictions on his nation. Now there is a full-blown global campaign to beat him into submission. Duterte's explosive statements this week vowing not to honor what he called the UN's “stupid” emissions demands, which he said were designed to “stifle us,” sparked major concerns among pro-UN types around the world that other governments might follow the island nation's lead. Those concerns about a mass “Clexit” — national exits from the UN “climate” scheme — are probably justified.
Indeed, Duterte's comments follow similar statements from GOP presidential contender Donald Trump, another anti-establishment political leader who promised to “cancel” the UN deal upon taking office. According to even notoriously unreliable polls, Trump, who has previously referred to the global-warming theory as a “hoax,” is basically tied with pro-UN Democrat Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House. America should never give “foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use,” the GOP contender declared, promising to eliminate all U.S. taxpayer funding for UN “global warming” schemes and the “draconian” climate rules. Trump's comments sounded very similar those made by Duterte.
Ironically, perhaps, federal law now officially prohibits the U.S. government from funding the UN bureaucracy in charge of overseeing the “climate” regime and its international wealth redistribution schemes. So even under a potential President Hillary Clinton, unless Congress changes the law, there will be no legal way to funnel U.S. taxpayer wealth into the UN regime — essentially killing the agreement, which was contingent on huge bribes offered by Obama to Third World governments. And even without a President Trump, the chance that two thirds of the U.S. Senate will vote to ratify the economy-crippling, sovereignty-smashing UN agreement is close to zero, according to high-ranking senators who have also called the global-warming theory a “hoax.”
Speaking on July 18 at the Malacanang Palace, Duterte said the government of the Philippines would not ratify the UN pseudo-treaty despite his predecessors signature on the scheme. The previous government had agreed to slash emissions of CO2 — also known to scientists as the gas of life — by 70 percent from 2000 levels by the year 2030. In exchange for the economy-retarding restrictions on energy use, the government in Manila was supposed to receive massive amounts of funding extracted from middle-class Western taxpayers. But now, Duterte, who took office last month, has blown it all up.
“I will not honor that,” he said.
Formally known as the “Paris Agreement,” the deal, negotiated last year, purports to mandate massive cuts in CO2 emissions to be determined by national governments, along with draconian powers for international and regional institutions to allocate carbon dioxide rations to humanity. The UN scheme is also dependent on trillions in wealth redistribution, with globalist-controlled Western governments promising governments of poorer nations huge bribes if they signed on. However, the Paris Agreement appears to be imploding even before it comes into force, with the Duterte's pledge and the Brexit vote representing only the most recent devastating blows to the UN plan.
Pointing at the 800-pound gorilla in the room that everybody sees but nobody wants to talk about, Duterte also argued that those pushing the UN “climate” regime were trying to control and stifle poorer nations. Governments of industrialized nations are “dictating the destiny” of developing nations by trying to bribe and bludgeon them into slashing the CO2 emissions of those they rule. While developed nations enjoyed a “booming” economy and got “rich because of coal and industrialization, we are being asked to cut emission and limit our activities,” he said. "That is stupid.”
Now that developing countries are starting to develop, the UN and other governments want to stop it by limiting poorer nations' prospects, the president argued. “We have not reached the age of industrialization. We are going into it. But you are trying to [cite the UN] agreement that will impose limitations on us. We maintain the present emissions,” he declared, calling the globalist effort to shackle poor nations “stupid” and “absurd.” “Now that we are about to develop, you will set limits... So that is how very constricted our lives are now. It’s being controlled by the world. It’s being imposed upon us by the industrialized countries. They think that they can dictate the destiny of the rest of the nations.”
When an ambassador told the Filipino president that the previous government had agreed to the UN regime, Duterte recalled speaking unambiguously. “That was not my signature,” he pointed out. “Somebody else's, not mine.” Indeed, the leader had harsh words for the official. “I’m mad at this ambassador,” he said, blasting as “nonsense” the UN-demanded limits on CO2 emissions for his country. “I want to kick him.” Duterte, who is hardly diplomatic in his criticism, previously accused the UN of being “hypocrites” for trying to limit energy production and consumption by poorer nations. More recently, he blasted richer governments as “oligarchs” trying to oppress others and live at their expense.
Globalists and climate alarmists were not amused, and promptly scrambled to put pressure on Duterte to reconsider his position. Either way though, in the Philippines, Congress must vote to ratify the deal, something that media outlets reported was uncertain — especially in light of Duterte's pledge to ignore it. Indeed, even in dictatorships, the “legislatures” are mostly required to approve the deal, despite Obama's outlandish claim that in the United States the pseudo-treaty does not need to be ratified by the Senate, as required for all treaties by the U.S. Constitution. News reports have suggested Obama is planning to issue an “executive order” in place of actual ratification.
The day after Duterte's comments, which sparked headlines around the world, UN boss Ban Ki Moon called for a “special event” at which governments and dictators worldwide would formally approve the shackling of their peoples to the UN's “climate” regime. “I urge you to accelerate your country’s domestic process for ratification of the Agreement this year,” said Ban, who has started referring to the dictators club he leads as the “Parliament of Humanity.” Globalists are claiming that if enough governments and dictators “ratify” the scheme, it will be impossible to stop. That is, of course, ridiculous, despite the claims of tax-funded “green” groups, UN bosses, and bureaucrats.
While globalists were freaking out, opponents of the UN's scheming and of “climate” alarmism celebrated the news. Prominent climate realist Marc Morano, for example, who produced the movie Climate Hustle, was quoted in media reports saying that some countries were waking up to the fact that the UN scheme was not in their best interests. “More and more nations are realizing that the UN climate treaty is nothing more than an effort to empower the UN and attack national sovereignty while doing absolutely nothing for the climate,” he said, adding that the “time has come for a U.S.-led ‘Clexit’ from ... the climate treaty.”
Indeed, with the UN global-warming regime threatening to empower internationalist extremists over every aspect of life, it is urgent that Americans get to work. Fortunately, though, the entire foundation of the scheme is built on quicksand: The global-warming theory underpinning the effort is now a global laughingstock, the deal will not be ratified by the U.S. Senate, federal law bars U.S. funding of the scheme, and even if the discredited theory were true (it's not), the UN deal would do practically nothing to stop “climate change.” Crushing the dangerous UN “climate” regime can and must be done. Americans can thank Duterte for helping lead the way.
Democratic operatives responsible for creating their party’s platform this year have unanimously adopted a provision calling for the Department of Justice to investigate companies who disagree with Democrats on global warming science.
A panel of Democrats voted Friday to approve a final draft of the party’s platform to promote “Progressive Democratic Values,” which apparently includes investigating energy companies who “misled” shareholders about global warming.
“Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent,” according to the Democratic National Convention’s website.
The drafting committee, led by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, has decided to back ongoing investigations by mostly Democratic state attorneys general into Exxon Mobil’s stance on global warming.
Currently, AGs from California, Massachusetts, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands have launched investigations of Exxon, and at least two AGs have demanded records on conservative think tanks and scientists skeptical of global warming. Such targeting has only fueled calls that these investigations are an attack on free speech.
New York AG Eric Schneiderman was the first to launch an investigation into Exxon, based on reporting from eco-left wing reporters at Inside Climate News and Columbia University. Schneiderman hosted a conference in March with other AGs to announce more investigations into Exxon.
Republican lawmakers and AGs have pushed back, calling the investigations into Exxon and think tanks an assault on free speech.
Some Republican AGs recently warned their liberal counterparts that if skeptics can be investigated for misrepresenting global warming, alarmists can be as well.
“If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration,” Republican AGs wrote. “If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”
Democrats have largely scoffed at free speech arguments, saying Exxon and others were committing fraud by disagreeing with the Obama administration over the severity of global warming and the effects of potential climate policies.
“As Democrats, we believe that our country’s greatest strength is its people, and we’re committed to the values of inclusion and opportunity for all,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement. “Our candidates ran strong campaigns that addressed the priorities of the American people, and I am proud to say that the drafting process has reflected our commitment as a party to elevating their voices.”
The draft party platform now needs approval from the full platform committee in Orlando in July. That document will then need approval at the Democratic National Convention later that month.
The Democratic platform didn’t just embrace prosecuting skeptics, it also approved a provision to get rid of fossil fuels by 2050.
“Moving beyond the ‘all of the above’ energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years,” reads the platform summary.
“The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement,” according to the platform.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
While President Obama and other world leaders joined tens of thousands of climate activists, politicians, and bureaucrats in Paris to promote a global regime to tax and regulate global CO2 (and all human activity), a group of distinguished scientists held an alternative conference elsewhere in the city to challenge the devastating policies at the UN’s COP-21 gabfest.
A main attraction of the event was its “Day of Examining the Data” on December 7, which featured presentations by, among others:
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., professor emeritus, atmospheric and space physicist, author and editor of numerous scientific books and peer-reviewed articles, recipient of numerous scientific awards, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and founder of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
“Climate is constantly changing; it has been warming and cooling for millions of years because of natural influences,” Singer said. “There is no reason to believe that these natural factors have suddenly stopped working — today or in the future. Therefore, the burden of proof is for climate alarmists to show convincing evidence that the rise of CO2 will produce catastrophes. In my view, they have not done this — probably because they cannot.”
Willie Soon, Ph.D., an astrophysicist and geoscientist based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection, as well as many articles published in peer-reviewed journals on the sun’s influence on climate. (See TNA interviews with him here and here.)
“After a quarter of a century of dedication to the scientific research on how the sun can affect the Earth’s climate, I am forced to conclude the United Nations’ summary of the latest science is either extremely weak or purposefully misleading filled with only half-truths,” Soon told the Paris conferees. “I challenge all COP-21 participants and even Greenpeace to come hear us out and embrace the full truth and to stop the sad demonization of CO2, the ultimate gas of life.”
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a paleogeologist and marine geologist, is emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia, former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia, and author of Climate Change: The Counter Consensus.
“In its first report in 1991, the IPCC concluded the observed twentieth century increase in global temperature could be largely due to natural variability. They were right then and the statement remains true today,” Carter said. “But despite the absence of direct evidence for dangerous human-caused warming, damaging natural climatic events will always be with us. The only sensible policy response is to prepare for and adapt to all hazardous climatic events, of whatever causation, as and when they occur.”
Christopher Essex, Ph.D., a professor of applied mathematics at the University of Western Ontario and a former director of its program in theoretical physics, is coauthor, with Ross McKitrick, of Taken by Storm.
“The world’s most baffling debate is over climate,” Essex said. “The debate’s boundaries exclude its own subject matter (the functions and differential equations of physics and chemistry). Within accepted boundaries, the key debating strategy for a certain side is to maintain throughout the debate that the debate is over, while simultaneously arguing its opponents do not exist, and that those nonexistent opponents are bad.”
The New American’s Alex Newman attended the Heartland conference in Paris and, along with TNA videographer David Lewis, interviewed these and other scientists and policy experts who contest the global-warming hysteria that poses as “science.” In this video interview below, Alex gives highlights of the Heartland Climate Realism summit.
Conclusions at COP21 Derived from
UN Approved Data Only
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
PARIS — For die-hard global warming militants, there are few villains in the rogue’s gallery of “deniers” more hated than U.S. Senator James Inhofe (shown). As chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, a committee he has served on since coming to the Senate in 1994, the Oklahoma Republican has long been recognized as their leading nemesis in Congress.
At past UN climate change summits, Senator Inhofe has appeared in person as a “One-Man Truth Squad” to challenge the bogus “consensus” that “the science is settled,” and to warn of the horrendous economic, social, and environmental consequences that a global climate treaty would inflict on the world. In the lead-up to the current Paris summit, there was much speculation in the media as to whether or not he would show up to “crash” the UN party. As it turns out, Sen. Inhofe did show up in Paris, but not in person; instead he sent a video message, which was played at the alternative “Climate Realism” conference being held in Paris by the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
In his 8-minute video address, Senator Inhofe made a number of key points about both the politics and the science of global warming, among which are that President Obama has announced commitments that “the American people neither [want] nor can afford," and that, Inhofe says, Congress is not going to let happen.
Inhofe noted that it is not only Republicans who oppose Obama’s new EPA-mandated “Clean Power Plan” — a centerpiece of the administration’s global warming scheme — but a bipartisan majority who will stop it. And, he noted further, the unconstitutional EPA mandate also faces lawsuits from dozens of states, as well as labor unions and companies.
Sen. Inhofe reported that one recent analysis shows that the president’s power plan will cost an astounding $292 billion, but “it would only reduce CO2 emissions by less than 0.2 percent; it would reduce global temperatures by less than .01 degree Farenheit; and reduce sea level rise by the thickness of two sheets of paper.”
In addition, Sen. Inhofe noted, under the proposed UN plan, China will continue to increase its emissions and India is calling for $2.5 trillion in climate “reparations” — to be paid for by the developed countries, meaning the United States and EU taxpayers.
As far as he is concerned, Inhofe said this is “not going to happen.” He called the administration’s Paris performance a “climate charade” and made it clear he intended to do everything in his power to see that it is never enacted into law, via legislation, treaty, or executive agreement.
Senator Inhofe cited convincing evidence to show that President Obama is going against the wishes of the American people by continuing his climate crusade. Besides recent opinion polls by the Washington Post, Gallup, and Fox News showing that global warming is last or near-last as a major concern of most voters, the president’s own party has failed to support these radical proposals in the past. On his committee website, Inhofe lists this concise history showing that the American people and Congress have spoken out against the federal government regulating carbon emissions through the following votes:
• July 25, 1997, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution unanimously with a vote of 95-0 which stated that it was not the sense of the Senate that the United States should be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol.
• Oct. 30, 2003, the Senate defeated S. 139, an effort to cap carbon emissions at the 2000 level, by a vote of 55 to 43.
• June 22, 2005, the Senate once again defeated S. 1151, another attempt to impose mandatory caps on carbon, by a vote of 46-38.
• June 6, 2008, the Senate defeated S. 3036, to cap carbon emissions at 63 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, by a vote of 48-36.
• In 2009, the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act, which would have established a variant of an emissions trading plan, was never brought up for a vote under a Democrat-controlled Congress.
During his long career in the Senate, Sen. Inhofe has found himself on both the Majority and the Minority sides of the committee, as control of the Senate has shifted back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. But through it all, he has remained the most outspoken and stalwart opponent of the political agenda that would turn the alleged threat of global warming into an excuse for implementing a massive global regime of taxation and regulation. He chaired the committee during 2003-2007, and when the GOP retook the Senate in last year’s elections, he again took over as chair. Over the years, Inhofe has been responsible for publication of many important committee reports on all aspects of the science, economics, and politics of anthropogenic (human caused) global warming, or AGW.
When he resumed leadership of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee last year, leftwing bloggers and Hollywood AGW activists went wild. As The New Americanreported:
Singer/actress Barbra Streisand says the thought of Senator James Inhofe chairing an important Senate committee dealing with the environment and climate is “frightening.” “God help us! This man is going to head the Committee on the Environment in the U.S. Senate. Like giving a fox the keys to the chicken coop,” Streisand said in a December 2 tweet.
“This wld be hilarious if it weren’t so frightening. I thank Sen Inhofe for singling me out as a voice against the perils of climate change,” she said in another tweet.
However, while the celebrity radicals and jet-set billionaires of the AGW alarmist lobby hiss and jeer at Senator Inhofe, the hardworking middle-class voters who pay the taxes (and are struggling to pay their families’ basic bills) have good reason to cheer him.
Continuing his pattern of running roughshod over Congress, the U.S. Constitution, and America’s national sovereignty, President Obama is now asserting that he can unilaterally negotiate climate deals that are legally binding on the United States. And all without a vote of the U.S. Senate.
His aggressive assertion of power has demonstrated itself in a multitude of ways in the past: military interventions in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, all without a declaration of war by Congress; using executive fiat to alter provisions of the Affordable Care Act; forging a nuclear weapons deal with Iran without Senate advice or consent; and changing immigration law by executive order, to name only a few.
Obama has now assured the more than 120 world leaders attending the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in Paris (November 30-December 11) that the United States will reduce its emissions of “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) by 28 percent by 2025. Because the Senate appears disinclined to ratify such an agreement, Obama has adopted a strategy of avoiding specific targets. Instead, he is pushing for binding procedures on how and when a supposedly sovereign nation should review its targets.
In his speech, Obama boldly declared that the reduction of greenhouse gases would be “legally binding” on nations, including the United States. “Although the targets themselves may not have the force of treaties, the process, the procedures that ensure transparency and periodic reviews, that needs to be legally binding,” he insisted.
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, took issue with Obama’s power grab, insisting,
The U.S. Senate will not be ignored. If the president wishes to sign the American people up to a legally binding agreement, the deal must go through the Senate. There's no way around it.
Inhofe, it will be remembered, was a voice crying in the wilderness years ago in opposition to the global-warming scare.
Globalists have long desired to strike down the constitutional requirement that two-thirds of the Senate must concur with any international agreement before it is considered law. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) — (an organization formed in the aftermath of President Woodrow Wilson’s failure to push the United States into a world government via the League of Nations after World War I — in 1928 called for the elimination of the two-thirds requirement, recognizing it as a formidable obstacle to their one-world plans.
Nigel Purvis, president of Climate Advisers and a major supporter of global action on “climate change,” argues that Obama already possesses all the legislative authority he needs to enter into an agreement without further Senate action, because the 1992 Rio Treaty was signed by President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate.
However, the Rio Treaty set no binding limits on GHGs for individual nations, and contained no enforcement mechanisms. What it did, however, was dangerous enough. It created “protocols” on how treaties would be negotiated in order to set up binding limits on GHGs. Five years later, the Kyoto Protocol established legally binding obligations for developed countries; however, this proposal was roundly rejected by the U.S. Senate. Chinese and Indian officials also declared that they would not ratify any treaty binding them to reducing CO2emissions. Canada later withdrew from Kyoto, recognizing that it was a scheme to transfer wealth to lesser-developed nations.
Nigel Purvis paints an ominous scenario of where the global-warming alarmists are headed. Recently, he declared, "Paris may be remembered as a turning point — the moment when governments sent a clear signal that this complex global transformation is inevitable. (Emphasis added.) He heaped praise on Obama for his “leadership” on the issue in forcing “accountability” upon nations of the world, adding that what has happened in Paris is “only the beginning” in the construction of a global “architecture.” He declared that what has emerged from the Paris talks is a change from what countries could do “on their own” to reduce GHG emissions, to “what they can do together.”
Purvis hopes that "what they can do together" is transfer wealth from nations such as the United States to developing nations. No doubt realizing that American taxpayers may not wish to have even more of their wealth transferred out of the country, Purvis called upon the Obama administration to use the authority of the “executive branch” to promote climate-change action abroad.
In other words, Obama should use his “pen and phone" to bypass Congress, placing the responsibility for action on climate-change policy in the hands of international governing bodies.
In 2008, John Dexhage, director of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), published a paper that openly called for a reduction in national sovereignty in order to deal with the issue of supposed global climate change. He declared,
Climate change poses serious challenges to traditional global environmental governance models and by doing so, demonstrates itself to be a fascinating issue on a number of fronts. For one, it represents a strong challenge to traditional, (neo) realist paradigms of international order, which assume state/national hegemony in an anarchic world, although the staying power of the neo-realist model in frustrating real progress on climate change should not be underestimated.
In other words, although people governing themselves in states and nations is a difficult problem to overcome in dealing with supposed anthropogenic (man-made) global climate change, the effort to diminish the sovereignty of nations must continue.
Drexhage argued, “To address the multi-faceted climate challenge we face, governance efforts must evolve beyond the current global-building model and that environmental and development policies must become much better integrated."
While Drexhage allowed that “Kyoto played a critical and necessary role in establishing a global value to carbon and in sending positive investment signals, directly and indirectly, for clean energy investments worldwide,” a “tremendous achievement,” now more must be done, he insisted. What did he suggest?
“There is a growing consensus," observed Drexhage, "that, at the very least, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will need to be reduced by at least 50 percent by the middle of this century. Clearly, achieving such a goal will require the engagement of all major economies." (Emphasis added.) Such actions will most likely lead to drastic reductions in the standard of living for Americans (such as living in smaller houses, making more use of public transportation, etc.), and Drexhage admits that is a political problem. Still, he wants to push a “globally binding regime by the end of this decade."
Obama's speech in Paris contained similar wording to that of Drexhage, and inferring from it, “binding” and “sovereignty” appear to be opposites, when applied to the nations of the world. If the U.S. Senate refuses to ratify such an agreement, Drexhage suggested setting up “an alternative structure, even if only as an initial step.”
He envisions that ultimately the United Nations would take control of policy, in regard to GHG emissions, and impose an “internationally binding GHG emission cap regime.” Developed countries would help “fund and support” non-developed countries as they adopt environmental policies favored by those such as Drexhage.
By 2025, Drexhage expects the imposition of “an internationally binding regime that will literally determine the mode of societies’ development over this century and beyond.”
So, it is clear that policies favored by Drexhage and Obama (note both cite 2025 as the year globalists will establish an "internationally binding regime") will lead to an increase in the executive power of the president to impose his environmental agenda through a world government — and a corresponding decrease in the national sovereignty of America. And Americans will be expected to reduce their standard of living significantly in order to accommodate this new world order.
However, the U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: No treaty is considered law in the United States unless it is approved by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate present. In the Constitution, the Founders gave “all legislative powers” to Congress. The president (the executive branch) is given no power to make law, even by making agreements with other nations.
It should also be emphasized that even were the president able to obtain a two-thirds concurrence from the Senate, any treaty so approved is constitutional only if it does not violate the Constitution. A treaty cannot be used to amend the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution provided the process by which it can be amended (in Article V), and amendment by treaty is not mentioned.
Thomas Jefferson, while serving as the third president of the United States, addressed this issue directly in 1803. “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
Secretary of State John Foster Dulles expressed a contrary view in 1952, when he claimed,
Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights.
It should be noted that Bill of Rights does not “give” the people rights. Under the philosophy of government expounded by Thomas Jefferson and the Continental Congress in the Declaration of Independence, “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The Bill of Rights simply guards those God-given rights.
So who is right on the effect of a treaty — Jefferson or Dulles?
Article VI of the Constitution is at the heart of this dispute. It states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
This is the “supremacy clause” of the Constitution. It is often misquoted to say that federal law trumps state law. That is not at all what it says. The “supremacy” spoken of here is not the federal government, but rather the federal Constitution. After all, it clearly states, “This Constitution,” not “This Federal Government.” Federal law is supreme only when it is made in pursuance of the enumerated powers given to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.
The same can said of treaties, which after all are another form of federal law. International agreements are not law anywhere in the United States until they are approved by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. Otherwise, the president could make law through a treaty. And again, the Article I of the Constitution states clearly that Congress (not the executive branch) has all legislative power.
To affirm, as Dulles did, that a treaty could override the Constitution itself, is ludicrous. That would be adding another method of amending the Constitution, in addition to that found in Article V. In Article V of the Constitution, under the method that has been used for all 27 constitutional amendments, Congress (both houses, not just the Senate) must approve by two-thirds vote of each house, and then send the proposed amendment to the states for ratification. Only after three-fourths of the states ratify the proposal is the Constitution legally amended.
Under Dulles’ faulty reasoning, the president and the Senate, could, acting on their own, cut the House of Representatives and the states completely out of the amendment process.
Once a treaty is approved under the authority of the United States (which means through the constitutional process provided for in the Constitution itself), it is indeed the law of the land, and it is superior to anything found in the constitutions or laws of any state not in the federal Constitution.
The only way that a treaty could amend the Constitution itself is if it were adopted through one of the methods provided for in Article V. It appears that Dulles was just developing "supremacy clause" theory to support increased power for international organizations, such as the UN, at the expense of the United States.
It is a commentary on the wisdom of the Founding Fathers that they had the foresight to include the requirement that a simple majority of the Senate is not enough to ratify a treaty, but rather two-thirds vote is needed, and that no treaty can amend the Constitution.
This is how a new dark age ruled by a totalitarian New World Order is ushered in. 345 global sycophants burned 300,000 tons of Carbon Dioxide to meet in Paris to impose a legally binding carbon taxation plan that will be proactively enforcing climate justice. The first legally binding carbon reduction plan the people of the world have faced.
Obama has already spent $784,825 on his motorcade alone. The New York Daily News reports “President Obama’s flight to the City of Lights emitted roughly 189 tons of carbon alone, burning 19,275 gallons of jet fuel, reports the Daily Caller.His entire trip will send more carbon dioxide into the air than the combined emissions from 31 U.S. homes over the span of a year.”
The State Department spent $407,868 on Limos. The contracted propaganda press spent $376,957. When it was all tallied up, the American taxpayers have already spent $1,805,282 to send a group of elitist New World Order stooges to another country to legally scale back their living standards through incorporated Agenda 21 initiatives.
Once again the liberal sociopaths are ignoring the scientific facts and statistics. Instead, pulling at our heart strings and ramming lies and guilt down our throats in order to achieve their New World Order agenda. Most sufferers of Stockholm syndrome will tell you that Obama and company need that money because these are important people making important decisions. However, the importance of any of these New World Order lackeys will likely be as a stain in a footnote of history. Where stupidity, hubris and greed raised its grisly self important head to once again challenge humanity’s intelligence and resolve.
Car service, hotels, and accommodations for the president and other administration officials to attend climate change talks in Paris are costing taxpayers nearly $2 million, according to government contracts.
The COP21 meeting of global leaders, which President Obama said is a “powerful rebuke” to terrorists, began on Monday. Representatives from 195 countries traveled to Paris, burning 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide for the United Nations conference that is seeking to reduce global emissions.
The tab for Obama’s motorcade alone totals $784,825. The State Department issued a $407,868 contract to Biribin Limousines, an international chauffeur service, for vehicles for the president’s security detail.
“No Sustainability Included,” the document states under a section for contract clauses.
Numerous other contracts for passenger vehicle rentals, including $9,042 for accompanying press, totaled $376,957.
Taxpayers were also billed $100,216 to book hotel accommodations for the president’s stay. Hotel rooms and cell phones for the U.S. Secret Service traveling with the president cost $16,642 and $4,034, respectively.
A number of cabinet secretaries are also in Paris for the United Nations conference, including IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, whose car service tab is $5,400.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s car service totaled $76,435, with three separate contracts worth $38,684, $15,789, and $21,962.
Car service for Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz is costing $19,080, and two contracts worth $10,153and $10,737 were issued for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s chauffeur service.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell is also attending the conference, with hotel accommodations at the Tuileries Finances in Paris costing $36,091, and her car service totaling $13,903.
In all, costs associated with the climate change summit totaled $1,805,282.
The spending included $51,337 to rent a hangar for Marine One for the duration of the trip, $4,744 to rent office equipment, $12,478 for a hotel suite for a control room, and $7,239 hotels for the United States Agency for International Development.
Spending on the conference dates back to August, when the government paid $9,576 to rent a meeting room.
President Obama’s goals he proposed for the conference are estimated to cost up to $45 billion per year and would reduce global temperatures by less than two-tenths of one degree.
