The neighbor across the border chimes in on a view of the Paris Climate agreement. I wonder if he is typical of Canadians?
The Paris Agreement is nothing but a lofty and symbolic United Nations initiative – one that facilitates smug liberal virtue-signaling, big government intervention in the economy and socialist redistribution of wealth.
Here is Marlo Lewis’ take on one view of the Paris Agreement/Treaty. It is an interesting one and his thoughts were published before the Trump announcement.
The Paris Agreement was the capstone of President Obama’s climate action plan, the political strategy by which he intended to give the Clean Power Plan and other legally dubious climate policies a treaty-like status, but without going through the constitutional treaty process.
By relabeling his domestic climate agenda as commitments America made to the world, he tried to dictate U.S. energy policy for decades to come regardless of the preferences of future presidents, Congresses, and voters. It was a climate coup of breathtaking ambition, and the treaty’s supporters at home and abroad did all they could to misdirect the debate and pressure Trump to break his campaign promise. President Trump kept an open mind, listened to all sides, and made the right decision for America and the world.
Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement overturns Obama’s end run around the Constitution’s treaty process, safeguards American democracy from foreign interference, dispels the Agreement’s long shadow over the U.S. energy and manufacturing sectors, foils corporate schemes to enrich special interests at consumers and taxpayers’ expense, and helps ensure developing countries will have the access to affordable energy they need to lift people out of poverty.
Read more of Marlo’s thoughts here.
Bottom line, President Trump gave good reasons for pulling out of the Paris Accord.
From the American Thinker: more here.
Marc O. DeGirolami is a law professor at St. John’s University and the author of The Tragedy of Religious Freedom.
Professor DeGirolami wrote a great post this weekend about judges with a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome:
Something ugly is happening to the First Amendment. It is being contorted to enable judges to protest Donald Trump’s presidency.
On just one, the EPA. The Environmental PROTECTION Agency is no longer protecting the environment. She is creating hell on earth for farmers and private land owners. Her regulations are out of control. She has infringed on so many rights of American citizens and it is a very serious matter. Lastly, much of the money is spent on establishing that the temperature is going up in America. OK, we get it, the temperature is going up. Stop measuring and come up with very practical ways that humans can help delay temperature increases in America. Don’t just keep spending the budget on measuring the temperature.
… excludes Iraq from list of banned countries.
Trump and company need to wake up and do the right thing. The approach needs to be surgical and not broad-stroked.
We may lose this family and it is so unfortunate.
I am keenly interested in Sweden and the cultural shifts taking place there. I’ve watched reports from there long before Donald Trump took office, so I know about the crime, no-go zones, anti-assimilation and more.
Now the New York Times is picking up on the story after President Trump made a comment about the chaos in Sweden. But it seems from a Front Page reporter, that there is denial round and round on both sides of the ocean.More
The Washington Post today condemns President Trump’s loose talk about banning Muslims. The report is that the judges who held up the ban are using his words from the campaign to establish intent for the executive order submitted for the ban on immigration of the sever Muslim-dominate countries.
Media reporting in this country has muddled the issue in my mind and so maybe in the minds of many here. I just posted a couple of videos from Eric Allen Bell who was sent to investigate the building of a mega-mosque in Tennessee. His investigative work changed his life and his political views. From him I take some clarification which makes sense. The problem is not a Muslim problem. The problem is an Islam problem. Per Eric many Muslims do not believe all of the Qur’an. Other Muslims on the other had know that the later writings of the prophet encouraged violence and that take those verses literally. That is a minority. Worldwide the minority who take a more radical view of the Qur’an is approximately 25% of Muhammad’s followers.
Thus, when the Post writes: “They cite his August speech advocating screening out people ‘who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.‘” “They,” are the judges who “rejected” President Trump’s executive order on banning Muslims. Stand on Sharia law is one criteria for entry into our country which is a serious flag for anyone entering.
My view is that we should not ban Muslims. We should ban those who have threatening views that go counter to our principles, the US Constitution including the Bill of Rights and our way of life. President Trump said as much in his campaign, that we have to “figure out what is going on.” The criteria could be quickly derived and implemented. There is not a need for country-by-country ban. However, those coming from territory held by ISIS may need further vetting in my view.
Islam presents other challenges. What we have seen in America and Europe is that Imam’s are the source for physical jihad and converting Muslims into active jihadists. I don’t have an answer for how the country assesses Imam’s who are in the USA. But, I know that some Imam’s are a source for radicalization of those hearing their teaching.
At Ramadan I’ve visited a local musjid along with other non-Muslims. Muslims are very hospitable. The Imam at these visits made many anti-American statements. That Imam has since left and I don’t know the current Imam. But the rhetoric of the former Imam was potentially inciting.
So, the problem IS Islam and the writings of the prophet. The issue is what is the ideology of the Muslim who is coming to America. To keep the peace and tranquility and to form a more perfect Union, the country needs a method to address the entry of anyone who opposes safety, peace and tranquility and who could disturb the peace and tranquility.
What does the Executive Order ban actually do?