Obama Rushes to Implement Climate Treaty Without Congress and Before Trump Can Cancel It

climate_change_dollars-777

By Eric Blair

The Obama Administration is rushing to implement a global treaty on climate change without a vote in Congress and before Trump can “cancel” the agreement.

Put another way, US will be under global governance without input from the people’s elected representatives. Those protesting the prospect of “fascism” might want to pay attention to this story.

According to The Independent:

The US Secretary of State John Kerry says he will continue his efforts to implement the Paris Agreement on global warming, until the day President Barack Obama leaves office.

President-elect Donald Trump has called climate change a hoax and said he would “cancel” US involvement in the landmark Paris deal.

According to the Associated Press, the Paris climate agreement has already officially become international law:

The Paris Agreement to combat climate change becomes international law on Friday (Nov 4th) – a landmark demonstrating that countries are serious about tackling global warming amid growing fears that the world is becoming hotter faster than scientists expected.

So far, 96 countries, accounting for just over two-thirds of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, have formally joined the accord, which seeks to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

In September, US and China ratified the Paris climate agreement.

The United States has joined China to formally ratify the Paris agreement to curb climate-warming emissions, the world’s two biggest economies said on Saturday, which could help put the pact into force before the end of the year.

“The signal of the two large emitters taking this step together and taking it early, far earlier than people had anticipated a year ago, should give confidence to the global communities and to other countries that are working on their climate change plans, that they too can move quickly and will be part of a global effort,” Senior Obama adviser Brian Deese told reporters.

The White House defends bypassing Congress on the Paris climate deal because it claims it is not a “treaty” but rather an “executive agreement.”

White House said the president has the legal authority to ratify the accord without the two-thirds Senate vote required for international treaties. The Administration said the pact is merely an “executive agreement,” not a treaty.

Except that The Independent refers to it as a treaty in the article above, and Reuters just called it the “most complex global treaty” in over 20 years

The 2015 Paris Agreement was agreed last December by almost 200 countries and has been described as the most complex global treaty since the Marrakesh (trade) Agreement, signed in 1994.

Ratification was swift compared to other international treaties, showing strong international support, but around 100 countries have yet to ratify it.

John Kerry is giving a major speech this week at the climate conference in Morocco where he’ll likely double down on America’s commitment to the treaty.

Imagine a global tax on the air we breathe imposed without a democratic process. Sounds like fascism to me.

Eric Blair writes for Activist Post. This article is free to repost in full with attribution.

  • ComeOn1

    Obama is not a dictator and needs approval from Congress. All Trump has to say is just that. The UN does not control the USA, and any agreement without Congressional approval is Null and Void.

    • dale ruff

      Treaties require approval; agreements do not.

      ” Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:
      It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent….” Wiki

      You may not like it but that is existing law.

      It’s happening and those who lie and oppose addressing it are criminals.

      • Busdriver Bill

        Really? Wiki? You should know better! It has its own agenda, FCS.

        • dale ruff

          Bill,no offense but a source is as good as its primary sources. Wiki is highly rated, with some articles having hundreds of sources. It is up near the top in medicine and many fields. I have background in scholarship but you apparently are one of the’poorly educated” that Trump (who called you “morons’ in a 1999 interview) that Trump has conned.

          To criticize the article, you have to show that the sources are fraudulent.

          Since you are too lazy or uneducated to check sources, I will provide the sources for the comment quoted:
          1. The Constitution: Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2
          2. The Supreme Court: See Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540
          3. Treaties and other International Agreements: the Role of the United States Senate (Congressional Research Service 2001)

          A Dartmouth study found: ” we find that registered participants, motivated by reputation and commitment to the Wikipedia community, make many contributions with high reliability. Surprisingly, however, we find the highest reliability from the vast numbers of anonymous `Good Samaritans’ who contribute only once. Our findings of high reliability in the contributions of both Good Samaritans and committed `zealots’ suggest that open source production succeeds by altering the scope of production such that a critical mass of contributors can participate.”

          Other peer-reviewed studies have found it nearly as accurate as the gold standard Britannica, and it is used by experts in all fields: “Studies have found that 70% of junior physicians use Wikipedia in a given week, while nearly 50% to 70% of practicing physicians use it as an information source in providing medical care [34-36].”

          See those numbers, 34-36: those are the primary sources, and so this article is as good as its sources.

          I understand you have no background in scholarship, but you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know the Constitution and SC rulings are rock solid sources, with the other sources being also valid.

          I have heard other uneducated people mock me (I have a world class education at the best public and private universities in the world…sources on request) and so it is second nature for me to check primary sources to assess reliability. I hope you have learned something.

          You can Google studies of Wiki reliability and check their sources, if you care.
          My parents were bus drivers, wonderful people but with no clue as the standards of knowledge. Remember: a claim is only as good as its source.

          As you give no source for your mocking of me for quoting Wiki, which is quoting the Constitution and Supreme Court, I could dismiss you as an ignoramus, but I always take the opportunity to pay back as an obligation of my world-class education, which ain’t too bad considering my parents both only finished the 8th grade.

          It is good to be skeptical, and that is why good sources give their sources. One of the merits of Wiki is that when an article is written without sources, they headline that this the case to put you on alert. And some articles have hundreds of primary sources……and if you can pick holes in the primary sources, you have a case.

          I suspect you didn’t even know how Wiki works and why it is respected by doctors, engineers, and scholars who, when they see an error, can correct it. This is massive peer review by tens of thousands of experts, leading to an excellent place to begin research (but not to end it).

          I assume you read the quote and saw the Constitution quoted…or did you just think you could take a cheap shot with no effort? That is why you are driving a bus rather than designing them. Your are both uneducated AND lazy. My son also only finished the 8th grade but his educated parents taught him early how to learn on his own and he is now a very successful business man with expertise in electronics, marketing, management, and IT. There are many ways to get an education…..and I hope I have helped.

        • michael lawless

          dale is a troll with no job

          • dale ruff

            And you know this how? I am 75, retired 4 years ago. I present fact-based information. My job is exposing lies.

            Your effort to refute me with lies is sadly pathetic.

          • michael lawless

            you forgot president of the local NAMBLA chapter

          • dale ruff

            This is an admission of total defeat on your part. Sad.

          • michael lawless

            haha sucker sorry your queen lost and now its america’s turn to shine
            go back in the basement
            TRUMP 2016 MAGA

          • dale ruff

            Not my queen, clueless one: I hate the Clintons.

          • desertspeaks

            I’m still waiting for you to show us all “with all your years of study” the authority granted to anyone in the Constitution that grants the authority for an agreement.. When precisely will you produce this fact?

      • ComeOn1

        Fine, then Trump can say forget it, we quit the UN, using his Executive Powers

        • dale ruff

          1. “American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009. H.R. 1146, 2009-02-24, originally H.R. 1146, 1997-03-20., a bill to end U.S. membership in the UN, was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Republican Ron Paul in 2005. Such measures have failed to pass by large margins.
          Organizations supporting U.S. withdrawal from the UN include:
          John Birch Society (called President Eisenhower a “paid agent of the Communist Party.”)
          Constitution Party (The party believes that the United States is a Christian state founded on the basis of the Bible and that jurisprudence should be restored to what the party claims is its “Biblical foundations”.[17] Its critics have described it—and its predecessor, the U.S. Taxpayers Party—as a theocratic and dominionist party.”

          How ironic that the Constitution Party should have the same platform as the Taliban and Sharia Law and deny the Law of the Land, per the Constitution, for in 1797, the President Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty constitutionally recognized as “the law of the land”
          “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

          “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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any …
          Article VI | Constitution

          The President cannot repeal laws. That is unconstitutional, and that’s the legal situation.
          Strategically, it would leave the UN Security Counsel under control of Russia and China…possibly idiotic in terms of national security.

          It is not the UN but NATO (designed to block the Soviet Union, which has not existed for 27 years) which the US should exit. The US has a defense budget of a trillion a year; Russia spends 50 million (cut 10% last year) or 5% of what the US spends.

          Trump even said that NATO was obsolete, before the generals had a talk with him and he came out and said “I am a big fan of NATO.” So his views are pliable, depending on who talks to him. He was right in the first instant: NATO is obsolete, since both Bush I and Reagan promised the Russians, in exchange for their disbanding the Warsaw Pact, that NATO (which the US controls) would not move one inch east and gobble up the former Warsaw Pact Nations. Since then, all 11 have “joined” NATO, and at this time, they are playing war games with tanks and nuclear missiles on the border of Russia. the “aggressor.”

          How would the US react if Russia had tanks and nukes on our Canadian and Mexican borders….would we then be the agresser if we sent our troops to those borders. Such saber rattling only serves to embolden the hardliners in Russia to demand more weapons, more force….and arms race, historically, according to a study of 2000 arms races over 2000 years, leads to war 98% of the time.

          Executive power, which has been growing since 9/11, cannot make laws or repeal them, and treaties are “the supreme law of the land.” A President who sought to violate the supreme law of the land would guilty of high crimes and impeached.

          We don’t need no stinking tyrants, taking the law into their own hands.

          • ComeOn1

            Oh well, Obama-style Executive Privilege has now been established.

          • dale ruff

            “The WSJ reported: “A 2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%.” When people blame Obama for acting as all other Presidents have, it raises the suspicion of racism. Did you criticize Bush for his even more executive orders including those which destroyed basic rights to privacy…did you speak out when he lied about iraq?

          • ComeOn1

            Like I said, no biggie. Trump can erase what Obama signed. And yes, like many who voted for Trump, those that despise the Neocons, including Hillary, knew the Iraq war was bogus. We’re called Libertarians, members of the Truth Movement and putting an end to corruption. When will the Left give up Tribalism for the Blue Team for what’s best for themselves and the country.

          • dale ruff

            You totally missed the point: Trump can revoke the agreement but the consequences would be HUGE!
            1. Russia would defend Iran and all peace overtures ruined.
            2. China would defend Iran and escalate friendly relations and replace with hostility
            3. The hardliner in Tehran would come to power and the moderates dismissed
            4. Iran would no longer be inspected and the hardliners who have not had a nuclear program for over 20 years would start it up.
            5. Iraq would support Iran, leading to US being kicked out and Iraqi hardliners taking power

            Politifact reported:

            “The deal aims to extend the time it would take for Iran to make a nuclear bomb.

            Without the deal, Iran might be two to three months away from getting a nuclear bomb. With the deal, Iran commits to not pursuing nuclear weapons overall and faces obstacles if it seeks to break its commitment and pursue a nuclear weapon.

            Under the deal, Iran will lose 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium. It will also give up 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium, and agree to only enrich uranium to a level unsuitable for weapons for 15 years.

            The deal also curbs Iranian production of plutonium, the other element that can be used to build a bomb. The deal bans plutonium reactors for 15 years and stipulates that Iran must dismantle its current one.”

            Iran has totally fulfilled all those measures, and with the Deal nuked, they would begin to rebuild their “lost” nuclear stockpiles and equipment. Torching a successful deal will give a pretext for more war: I thought libertarians ( I am one) from Ron to Rand Paul to Gary Johnson wanted less military intervention, fewer wars.

            I don’t think you are a libertarian, which opposes the failed neo-con war plans, but a neo-con hiding under the cloak of being a libertarian.

          • ComeOn1

            There is no proof, actually there is complete absence of proof by our own government, that Iran is working on Nuclear Weapons, and does not have the ability to make Weapons Grade uranium. I find the Suni’s of Saudi Arabi, Qatar, UAE to be the insane Wahabi side of the Arab world. Iran is going to do what its going to do, regardless. Trump is right that Saddam Hussein was a check on Iran, so the Middle East is wide open for alliances, which are obviously breaking down by Suni vs Shia. Taking out ISIS, which is flooding Europe and the US with Refugees is our personal, immediate problem.

          • dale ruff

            The CIA and Mossad both have stated that Iran has not had a nuclear weapons .
            http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/mossad-cia-agree-iran-has-yet-to-decide-to-build-nuclear-weapon-1.419300 nov 18, 2016

            They have no nukes; there never has been: it’s a lie. Trump has said he will tear up the deal, and he has on board Bolton, the neo-con who wrote a recent oped “Bomb Iran” and Nikki Haley want to tear up the agreement (which would put us in conflict with Russia, China, and the other signatories and hand over power to the Iran hardliners. Here are some articles which document US support for ISIS…
            http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-us-supports-the-islamic-state-isis-one-accidental-airdrop-vs-billions-in-covert-military-aid/5409449
            http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/leaked-hillary-clinton-emails-show-u-s-allies-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-supported-isis/

            In this link, it reports Trump will withdraw support for ISIS and work with Assad and Putin…the problem is his chief adviser, Woolsey (CIA), Hadley (NSA), Bolton (UN/neo con: Bomb Iran1)
            and now Romney (Russia is our #1 enemy)
            and Nikki Haley: tear up the deal and confront Iran.

            It just doesn’t make sense that a man who promises one thing would choose 5 advisers who totally disagree with his views and want to attack Iran. As for crushing ISIS, we owe that to the ME since we created them, starting under Carter in 1979.

            The problem with Trump is not the plan he declared but that when they revoke the Iran Deal, that will be the end of friendly relations with strong Iran allies Russia and China. The other problem is he is a pathological liar (like Clinton).

            I am surprised, after you attacked me, that you agree with me.

            The US resists working with Assad and Russia because it has armed and funded ISIS.

      • YourTV Unplugged

        Well it seems you don’t even read the crap you cut and paste! I’d say according to Thomas Jefferson that this ‘global theft of remaining wealth scam accomplish treaty’ is a long term commitment! A commitment to steal from the people what remaining we have left where inflation couldn’t get us, now just take the rest, with no benefit whatsoever! And place upon us a carbon control system again with no real world benefit, except to the controllers. When science is corrupted to the point where we don’t do things because the science makes sense to do them, we just do them to give the controllers more control over us! When you realize that no matter the harsh carbon control measures they put in place, nothing will change in terms of temperature of the planet, what are we left with? We’re left with the carbon control system and no benefit at all! So the goal isn’t really to reduce global temperatures now is it? No the goal is merely the carbon control system and theft of remaining wealth!

        “Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary WHEN there is NO LONG-TERM COMMITMENT”

        So according to Jefferson, this would fall into the Article II treaty procedure seeing as it comes with a long term commitment! 😉

        • dale ruff

          “It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent..” Jefferson

          Thank you for bringing up this 200 yr old opinion: it clearly does not discuss sole-executive agreements but rather treaties, which require approval, and legislative acts by Congress.

          You have misread his opinion, which does not even refer to executive agreements. Treaties are “legally binding” while executive agreements are politically binding.

          The WSJ reported: “A 2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%.

          The founding fathers designed the international agreement system with a lot of flexibility, or, depending on your perspective, ambiguity, because even they couldn’t agree on which branch of government should have the dominant say in how the U.S. reached deals with foreign governments.

          In recent decades, presidents have entered into thousands of executive agreements with foreign governments, on a range of issues, both controversial and relatively basic.

          For instance, the Obama White Housed called the Iran Agreement “a non-binding agreement.” Trump has said he will overturn it and he has hired John Bolton, the most rabid Bush neo-con, who is comping at the bits to bomb iran (See his NYTimes oped “Bomb Iran” from last year.

          Newsweek summarizes the risks of a non-binding agreement:
          “After his inauguration, Trump would have the authority to revoke the executive agreement. Trump has called the deal “disastrous” and said his “No. 1 priority” would be to dismantle it.” And then we could bomb Iran if they took back the 97% of enriched (medical grade, not weapons…they had none of that at 90%) they got rid of and the 2/3 of centerfuges they got rid of and re-open the plutonium plant they filled with concrete.

          The point is that if the Trump repeals the agreement, it will destroy the moderates and put the hardline anti-Americans back and power and they will build up Iranian nuclear and military power…..in preparation for the war Bolton has promised. Inspection and accountabiity will be replace by war, with the risk of broader war as Russia, Syria, and other Iranian allies weigh in, including China which imports a large amount of its oil from Iran, sees it as an important market, and has helped Iran militarily.

          So the Trump pro-Russian claims will be undermined by attacking Iran. The neo-cons Trump has hired (Woolsey, Hadley, Bolton) are all in the old anti-Russian camp. “Trump may say he wants to make peace with Russia, but this is not on Bolton’s agenda. “Vladimir Putin’s Russia is on the prowl in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in ways unprecedented since the Cold War,” he writes.

          Trump’s VP, Mike Pence, has similar thoughts on Russia.

          In other words, don’t go by what Trump is saying…that is negotiations, which may include lies, bluffs, etc. Look at who he is choosing to make foreign policy: war mongering anti-Russian neo-cons.

          Bolton claims Iran is making nukes right now, tho the CIA and MOssad both agreed that they have had no weapons program for decades. So this will be the Big Lie (to complete the PNAC plan for 7 wars in the MD) that Bolton uses to repeal the deal and start our.

          Why would Trump take on a group of rapid neo-cons, who want war on Iran and confrontations with Russia and China, if he is serious about improving relaitons with Russia, who will certainly break off friendly relations if the US attacks their ally iran. China will also.

          This is the kind of nightmare scenario dreamed up by Woolsey and the others in the plan for world domination, which starts in the ME but goes on to defeat Russia and China. Thiis is neo-con doctrine, openly admitted in their published plans. It is the kind of nightmare we are still trying to emerge from, created by the same neo-con team that worked for Bush and failed so miserably.

          I wish we could have intelligent exchange instead of vitriol.

    • Busdriver Bill

      A problem lies in the difference between de jure and de facto. What is right is just fine and dandy, but what really happens isn’t always right. Don’t forget that even when approved by nine black robes, it isn’t necessarily right, correct, OR legal, Constitutionally. Up until that foolish “machine gun” law of the early ’30s, we had a Second Amendment. It’s been virtually non-existent ever since. Not unlike the situation of legal tender and the Federal Reserve. It has been a different country ever since that A*s H**e Teddy Roosevelt slithered his way into public life; most likely had McKinley shot; and assumed the Progressive Presidency. There have been a handful of real presidents since, but mostly cut-outs and charlatans. I see Mt. Rushmore and I want to get up there with a jack-hammer.

      • dale ruff

        I think there should be a law that every househoLd should have a machine gun, as well as a tank and nuclear bomb. “NO INFRINGEMENT”

        The ban on machine guns was the ruin of America! The 2nd Amendment clearly was intended to give people the right to machine guns, which had been used in the Revolutionary war to defeat the Brits!

        Japan has almost no weapons and they have 11 gun murders a year, showing that when ordinary Bills don’t have guns, only outlaws will have them……the US, with 300 million guns has only 9,000 gun murders, proof that guns make us safe.

    • FunkAnarchy84 ☭

      How do you think Obamacare got passed? Wasn’t through Congress!

      • dale ruff

        “They (Dem Senators) decided to have the House take up the identical bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. It passed on March 21, 2010, by a 219 – 212 vote. This time, no Republicans came on board, and 34 Democrats voted against. President Obama signed the ACA legislation two days later on March 23.”

        Obamacare is a watered down version of the Koch funded Heritage Plan from 1989: I quote from the Heritage plan at their website;
        “THE HERITAGE PLAN

        A National Health System for America, the Heritage plan aims at achieving four related objectives: All citizens should be guaranteed universal access to affordable health care.”

        Note: the ACA does not go to far; it does not guarantee and it is not universal.

        More from the text of the plan, which Speaker Gingrich and the Republicans adopted as the alternative to “Hillarycare.”

        The key features are subsidies for the poor and a mandate that all households obtain insurance. This plan was pro-market, pro-corporate, delivering 40 million new captive and subsided customers for the private insurers: the transfer of taxpayer funds to private pockets: 15-20% to the insurance companies and 80-85% to private medicine. Medicare spends 2% on overhead and delivers 98% to private medicine.
        Back to the text:
        “Direct and indirect government assistance should be concentrated on those who need it most.” (This is subsidies).
        ” 2) Mandate all households to obtain health insurance.”

        You can view the original publication here:
        http://americablog.com/2013/10/original-1989-document-heritage-foundation-created-obamacares-individual-mandate.html

        Clearly, the ACA does not go this far, as 29 million are still uninsured. When the Democrats, despairing of even a public option (which was supported by 70-80% in polls), adopted the Republican plan, the Republicans disowned their own baby and voted 52 times to repeal it: infanticide.

    • masmpg

      Then you woke up!

  • Ben

    @ComeOn1:disqus,

    He can do that and then revoke the charter of the U.N. dismantling the Rockefeller hold on the U.S., further then dismantle the Trilateral Commission, the Council of Foreign Affairs. Those too are Khazarian Mafia holdings the U.S. has no need to be beholden to.

    • dale ruff

      A lot of idiots agree with you but the President cannot revoke the UN charter signed by 200 nations and which stands as the supreme law of the land, per the constitution, which mandates that treaties (ie approved by Congress and signed by the President) are “the supreme law of the land.”

      A President who repealed a law would be betraying his oath to defend and protect the Constitution.
      The UN Charter was ratified and signed as a treaty and so it stands as the supreme law of the land. A President who seeks to repeal the supreme law is guilty of treason. How stupid do you think Trump is?

      “As a charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore, Article 103 of the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations.[1][2] Most countries in the world have now ratified the Charter.”

      Are you advocating treason?

      • Jo Peter

        Nope, the U.S. Constitution never gave the Federal government the power to sign away sovereignty. To the extent that membership does so the ratification is null and void. It’s also invalid for one treaty to say it supercedes all other treaties, since in fact it’s on equal footing and the sovereign power (on behalf of the people) decides how to rectify any conflicting treaty obligations (but in no case may those obligations conflict with the constitution itself just as a law cannot conflict with the constitution itself.) It would be a diplomatic nightmare so its best just to gradually extricate us from its more onerous provisions with the assent of congress.

  • Tabbytha

    There shouldn’t be a tax on the air you breathe whatever political process you use….

    • dale ruff

      We pay a huge tax for our polluted air. The IMF study found that the transnational fossil fuel industry gets 5 trillion a year in subsidies, with the costs of damage to human health and the environment shifted to the public. We pay a huge tax in the form of taxes which are then given to oil companies and used to deal with the lethal effects of pollution. All nations which have had a carbon tax have had robust growth and no higher taxes on the citizens and more green energy and cleaner air. Look it up.

      • Bill the eighth

        You know, when you keep posting comments with Wiki, the UN and the IMF as your sources you lose all credibility.

        • dale ruff

          A source is only as good as it’s sources. My views are based on what scientists have learned. What are yours based on?

          • Bill the eighth

            Yours are based on politics, not science. I, on the other hand, prefer to get FACTS from REAL climate scientists.

          • dale ruff

            Name one.

          • dale ruff

            Like (from your source)
            David Evens, an electrical engineer, who accepts global warming as real? He is a real engineer with no credentials or peer-reviewed research in climate science.

            Ennis Rancourt is a PH.d in physics with no credentials in climate science and whose work on climate are not research but a blog.
            In February, 2007, Rancourt published a controversial essay disputing prevailing theories of climate change on his blog.

            Freeman Dyson is a 91 yr old with and advanced degree in physics and no peer-reviewed research on climate.
            “Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that “[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.”

            Dr. Curry has a PH.d in geophysical sciences. She is indirectly a climate scientist. I will quote from a 2008 article she wrote:
            “The earth is getting warmer, and scientists conducting research on global climate change
            overwhelmingly agree: most of the warming since the mid 20th century has been caused
            by humans, primarily through burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.”

            Ok, unlike you, I actually check out primary sources…….the one climate scientist climate deniers claim asserts that AWG is real.

            Busted!

        • dale ruff

          What are your sources and what are your sources that show Wiki, the UN, and IMF information is fake?

    • blue579

      The ‘carbon tax” = ultimate level of control over humanity.

      • dale ruff

        BC carbon tax law states that the revenue collected goes to the consumer, with none spent on government projects. The right to pollute is denied and taxed and the right to clean air is affirmed. This laws was passed by the conservative party in BC, and has been in operation for 8 years, resulting in no new government powers and less pollution. Win win.

    • Busdriver Bill

      Not only that – we must stop this stupid denigration of Carbon and Carbon Dioxide – neither are the slightest bit harmful – only should CO2 fill an enclosure where breathing is required. Too little of the gas and plants will die. It regulates our breathing rate. There’s only less than a half of a percent in the atmosphere at present, and it has bee much higher throughout geologic history, when it was tropical more extensively.
      C’mon folks, it is smoke and mirrors. Follow the money, as the whole silly “warming” scam is a con.
      It’s the sun, and it always has been the sun, which controls the surface temperature of the earth. Ice is increasing, and an Ice Age is far more likely in the near future ( say a 100,000 years or so). We short lived pieces of protoplasm have such a narrow perspective.
      (Amateur astronomer and continual student of the cosmos and geologic history, I am).

      • dale ruff

        C02 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas which heats up the atmosphere and is causing 90% of the world’s glaciers to melt away, causing both flooding and food shortages (as when the ice is all gone as it is in many places…the source of water just melts away.

        The big money is the fossil fuel industry which makes tens of billions a quarter and often pays low or no taxes and, according to a study by the IMF, gets 5 trillion a year in taxpayer/govt subsidies. This is a rather large tax! Not only do we get sick from foul air and water, but we have to pay for it! This is the jackboot on our faces. Ice is not increasing, except in a few places but overall it is melting fast.

        Where did you get your PH. d and do research on climate?

        • Bill the eighth

          You are completely delusional. AWG is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humans. The ice sheet is growing both north and south, Co2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, instead it is the life source of all plant life on this planet which then converts the Co2 to O2. Go ahead and give those charlatans more of your money, but keep your hands off my wallet you totalitarian collectivist.

          • dale ruff

            Let me troll you with a few facts:
            1. Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
            “A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation.”
            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

            2. Here is the summary of findings of the project that the Koch brothers, who funded the study and have spent hundreds of millions to block legislation to curb pollution/emissions by creating confusion in the public:
            http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

            3. Here is the oped by Dr. Muller, the climate skeptic (and climate scientist) who led the Berkeley Earth Project, intended to find fraud and distortion in government data on temperature:
            http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

            I encourage you to read these brief presentations.

          • Bill the eighth

            You don’t know what you are talking about, you drank the kool aid and now your cognitive dissonance will not let you see the truth. You are forever condemned to remain an easily manipulated, immature sheep. Follow your leaders, give them your money and do exactly what they order you to do. You must do with less so they can have more. With dupes like you running around, it is no wonder we are in the shape we are in today.

          • dale ruff

            I am reporting on the findings of climate and atmospheric scientists, including those who worked for the fossil fuel industry. I don’t think accepting empirical science is sheeplike, tho denying it is. I have no leaders other than scientific truth. Your insults mask your unwillingness to confront the evidence that scientists have presented. Willful ignorance is no crime but it is a form of voluntary stupidity.

          • Bill the eighth

            You are not, you are posting “findings” of political hacks who have admitted lying in order to push their far left soviet agenda for total control. I am amazed you give any of these liars any credibility. After the scandal at East Angola, the admission from Jim Hansen that he manipulated data, the long debunked “Hockey Stick”, the fact that there has been NO warmer for 20 years, the fact that the claim of 97% of the world’s scientists agree on AGW has long been debunked.

            I am afraid that it is you who cannot get out of your trance like following of people you think should rule over you. Again you are an easily manipulated sheep, just the kind of stupid the elite like to have around. You know, a useful idiot.

          • dale ruff

            The Koch funded Berkeley Earth Project found the “hockey stick” to be absolutely accurate. Only sheep deny science.

          • Bill the eighth

            The “hockey stick” has long been debunked as a lie. As has all of the BS spewed by these charlatans. You are the one denying science, yet you steadfastly hold to your belief that the government has all the answers. This hoax has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with control, but you are too brainwashed to see.

            What are you doing here? Shouldn’t you be over at Salon or Slate or HuffPo? You know, with sheep more willing to listen to your nonsense.

          • dale ruff

            “This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2015 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.” The Berkeley Earth Project, which you clearly have not read, was funded by the Kochs to show that NASA. NOAA, etc had all falsified data. The climate skeptic, Dr. Muller found that the data was totally valid. See his oped at NYTimes.

            It’s an empirical fact, supported by the scientists at Exxon and the Koch funded study. ALL climate scientists accept global warming as an empirical fact and 97% accept that the only logical explanation is human activity, 1 billion gas vehicles, etc. You can call the world’s scientists frauds but all attempts to show the data is fake have proved it is not.

            Abstract
            Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
            John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9
            Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
            Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2

            “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

            I will stick with the science. Hockey that!

            I urge you to read the sources I provided and stop with the pathetic and fact free attempts to deny science.

          • Bill the eighth

            Keep posting propaganda, that will convince everyone you are a wack job.

          • dale ruff

            You have not read my sources so your calling it propaganda (this includes Exxon scientists, Koch hired climate skeptics, and 97% of peer-reviewed cliimate scientists) is not too convincing. Are the world’s scientists, including those hired by Exxon and Koch, wack jobs?

          • Bill the eighth

            You are a delusional wack job who’s god is AGW. There are no facts, no arguments, nothing that can change your belief in imaginary nonsense. Why you insist you have the right to force your crazy ideas on the rest of us shall remain a mystery. Stop with the “97%” BS, that has long been debunked. The only people who share your insanity are the ones making money from this scam. You fell for it, therefore you can foot the bill.

          • dale ruff

            Dr. Muller is not a hack,nor were the Exxon climate scientists who discovered AWG in 1981. Nor are the 97% of peer-reviewed climate scientists who accept AWG as the only logical explanation, since volcanic and solar activity has been stable and cannot explain a sudden increase.

          • dale ruff

            Well, the source is emails from Exxon.

        • Chris Freethinker

          “C02 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas which heats up the atmosphere and is causing 90% of the world’s glaciers to melt away,” utter BS. CO2 is a necessary ingredient for life to exist in a delicate balance of ingredients within our atmosphere. To declare or label it a “greenhouse gas” is not only reckless, it is wrong.

          • dale ruff

            CO2 is necessary for life….but in the atmosphere, where there are no plants, in allows in more solar heat than it allows to escape. The primary greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

            Too much C02 can kill plants.

            You cannot find one climate scientist who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

            I suggest: “Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas” “https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/
            or consult any text on climate or atmospheric scientist or talk to any scientist in the area.

            You are repeating junk science from non-scientists. Facts are facts, whether you call them bullshit or not.

          • Chris Freethinker

            When you LABEL CO2 a greenhouse gas, it is your intent to EXCLUSIFY it as that such that the receiver of the information gets a dramatic and false impression that your label keeps it trapped in your description of it!

          • dale ruff

            Not at all: CO2 is necessary for life AND in the upper atmosphere, where there is no life, it acts as a greenhouse gas. There is no contradiction…..who doesn’t know that plant growth requires CO2?

            I learned that in the 4th grade. And who doesn’t know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

            There is no false impression: both are true. The lies are with that tiny fraction who deny that CO2 in the upper atmosphere is warming the earth; scientific studies of arctic cores, etc have shown that the current levels are higher than in the past 800,000 years, much higher than any time during which human life has existed.

            Can we agree with science that CO2, if not too great, benefits plants and that in the upper atmosphere traps heat? No scientist or anyone who has had 8th grade science denies these 2 facts.

          • Chris Freethinker

            Here’s the other thing. Even IF mankind IS causing a very slight warming, the effects (whatever, sea level changes, etc) will happen so incrementally vs ever expanding technologies that we can deal with them THEN, and we have no (a priori) need to start getting any kind of slush fund ready, just so globalists can start some kind of taxation plan that over-rides national sovereingty. It just isn’t very important right now.

          • dale ruff

            I appreciate your open mind; I have been a free thinker for over 60 years.

            Please take a look at this:
            http://www.livescience.com/37057-global-warming-effects.html
            “Global warming is expected to have far-reaching, long-lasting and, in many cases, devastating consequences for planet Earth…”
            and
            http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects/
            and
            “Are the Effects of Global Warming Really that Bad?
            Short answer: Yes. Even a seemingly slight average temperature rise is enough to cause a dramatic transformation of our planet.” at
            https://www.nrdc.org/stories/are-effects-global-warming-really-bad

            “In May 2013, scientists reported measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as high as 400 ppm. Levels of CO2 haven’t been that high since the Pliocene Epoch, which was between 3 million and 5 million years ago, according to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography”

            Here are the effects of small changes (increase of 40% in C02 is hardly small, or 90% of world’s glaciers melting..
            1.Higher temperatures are worsening many types of disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. A warmer climate creates an atmosphere that can collect, retain, and drop more water, changing weather patterns in such a way that wet areas become wetter and dry areas drier.
            2.Today’s scientists point to climate change as “the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.” It’s a threat that impacts all of us—especially children, the elderly, low-income communities, and minorities—and in a variety of direct and indirect ways. As temperatures spike, so does the incidence of illness, emergency room visits, and death.This is not speculation about the future but empirical evidence now.
            3.Rising temperatures also worsen air pollution by increasing ground level ozone, which is created when pollution from cars, factories, and other sources react to sunlight and heat. Ground-level ozone is the main component of smog, and the hotter things get, the more of it we have. Dirtier air is linked to higher hospital admission rates and higher death rates for asthmatics. It worsens the health of people suffering from cardiac or pulmonary disease.
            4.Dirtier air: 2015 study showed that vertebrate species—animals with backbones, like fish, birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles—are disappearing 114 times faster than they should be, a phenomenon that has been linked to climate change, pollution, and deforestation.
            5.More acidic oceans
            The earth’s marine ecosystems are under pressure as a result of climate change. Oceans are becoming more acidic, due in large part to their absorption of some of our excess emissions. As this acidification accelerates, it poses a serious threat to underwater life, particularly creatures with calcium carbonate shells or skeletons, including mollusks, crabs, and corals. This can have a huge impact on shellfisheries. Indeed, as of 2015, acidification is believed to have cost the Pacific Northwest oyster industry nearly $110 million.
            6.Higher sea levels
            The polar regions are particularly vulnerable to a warming atmosphere. Average temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere on earth, and the world’s ice sheets are melting fast.
            (Main source is climate science research, summarized at
            https://www.nrdc.org/stories/are-effects-global-warming-really-bad

            Let’s focus on the scientific facts, for no intelligent discussion can proceed until we agree on common facts.

          • Susan O’neill

            What even you have failed to mention is that the cumulative and all encompassing different aspects of consequences make for an exponential incremental escalation of the problems as each exacerbates and undermines another finely balanced but critical element of the problems this planet faces. If Larson C should break off there is more fresh water than is beneficial and less “white” to reflect the UV’s. Without the el nino Britain and Europe freeze, without the cold water currents of the Agoula and Benguela fish will go to deep water and fishing collapses, without the primary jungles/forests the air pollutants become excessive(plants use CO3 for Photosynthesis) and natural flood barriers cease to exist, where trees are denuded there is nothing to hold soil and grazers cannot flourish and over thousands of years learn to migrate to pasture. Everything connects to the balance that is needed for sustainability – mankind has yet to realize that we are the ones dependent on all things being equal. If humans were to have a massive die off tomorrow(ELE) the planet would recover

    • dale ruff

      It’s a tax on the lethal pollution which fouls our air and kills millions each year. We have a right to clean air, and government which refuses to protect our health is a evil. Polluted air is not air but a chemical stew that will make you sick and kill you. There should be a tax (or ban) on polluters to force them to
      1. pay for the damage they do/ IMF estimates that 5 trillion a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry
      is spent to cover costs of damage done to human health and the environment.
      2. motivate them to clean the pollution, switch to clean energy, support electric cars, etc.
      3. Do what it has done in all other nations which have carbon taxes:

      # all such nations have robust economies, have not raised taxes (the tax on carbon is used to refund to energy consumers, subsidize conversion to clean energy, and to offset other taxes) and have
      #reduced pollution, improving human health and environment
      #increased clean energy
      #been consistent with strong economic growth
      #created new jobs (in pollution reduction industries and green energy industries).

      Several European countries have enacted a carbon tax. They include: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990. All are among the most prosperous, stable, and free nations on earth.

      For instance, Norway per capita income is over $100,000, twice that of the US plus they have universal healthcare, free at point of consumption, and free college through medical school.
      Switzerland, Sweden, and Denmark all have much higher average incomes than the US.
      And our neighbor British Columbia has a carbon tax. “Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. … BC’s fuel consumption is also down.” BC median household income is $72,000. US is $53,000…and they have free (at point) healthcare and education.

      Carbon taxes used to offset other taxes, provide dividends to consumers, and to subsidize private clean energy projects decreases the power of polluters and protects the right to clean air. It is about reducing pollution and giving people cheaper clean energy: how totalitarian is that?

      Solar energy equipment pays for itself in 5 years and provides another 20 in free, non-polluting energy. That is why the energy oligarchs hate it and are trying to sabotage it in Arizona, Florida, and other states by private taxes. For instance: APS in Arizona seeing the solar movement explode sought authorization to charge those with solar $100 a month in fees for connection to the grid. Well, 95% are already connected and the APS, by law, is required to provide a certain percent of renewable energy which solar homeowners provide cheap back thru the grid, without APS have to build expensive new facilities. $100 a month is far more than solar homes pay in energy, which ranges from getting refunds to zero to a few bucks in heavy energy usage situations. This was an obvious attempt to destroy the fast growing solar industry and the conservative Arizona regulators gave them only $5. Near Phoenix, another fossil fuel provider did get a $40 tax on solar homes.

  • masmpg

    I would bet that obama and trump discussed this when they met the other day. Trump will say nothing about it. He will blame obama, and all will be “fine” once again as the UNgovernment steals more of our hard earned tax dollars. Make no mistake folks, Trump is a capitalist corporatist money monger like all the rest. His policies will place the middle class world in deeper check. Trump made no bones about how to create wealth. He sold videos and tapes to the public on how to do it. His main purpose in life is the same as soros but maybe not as extreme.

    • Hopsing

      Are you saying he’s the lesser of two evils?

      • Busdriver Bill

        “Well, nobody’s perfect.” (Thank Billy Wilder and “Some Like It Hot,” for that one).

      • masmpg

        When has our election for any politicians NOT been the “lessor of two evils”? It is just that their evil is getting much more obvious! What we the people fail to see is the left right paradigm. We only think of it in terms of liberal conservative, or republican democrat. Most don’t look at the moral immoral aspect, which should be very obvious by now. When the democrats are in office they push the immoral issues, and they believe that they have freedom without morality. When the republicans are in office they “backlash” with moral legislation. This has been going on since the democratic party was invented in the early 19th century. We the people are now seeing the outcome of this plan by the oligarchs to undermine the freedom which the constitution has protected. The last few presidencies have made the moral immoral aspect of the left right most obvious, but too many fail to acknowledge this fact. The powers that be knew that eventually a two party system that worked toward the same goal from different aspects of society would become more and more obvious. Now the powers that be must move fast because many people are waking up to this reality. The right wing backlash from the immoral left push will be severe, and will eventually cause a church run state world. The dark ages are a sure example of what that will look like. When the church is in charge they tend to usurp God’s authority and this attitude causes all those who disagree with them to be put to death. Witch hunts, crusades, jihads. These ideologies have always dominated world leaders ambitions, and believe me this history will repeat itself.

        • dale ruff

          JFK was not evil and as a result the Deep State murdered him when he stood up to the Pentagon and CIA.

          • masmpg

            JFK was one of the greatest presidents ever. In his day the immoral push of the left was only minimal. Now the immorality has overtaken USA and obama even went to germany to campaign for LBGT legislation there! What business does he have embarrassing USA in other countries like that? Komrad Klinton and Kohorts was not much better. The left immoral push has slowly been pushed to this limit, and this is the limit. Immorality cannot get any worse. The only thing left to do immorally is human sacrifices, BUT I hope and pray that the divine intervention happens before the world gets that far. Whether we believe it or not Jesus is coming soon, like sodom and gomorrah, LBGT was the last straw that destroyed them. As the left pushes the immoral lbgt agenda, and now Trump even supports it, Jesus will come and take HIS people home.

    • dale ruff

      It’s not the UN but the oil companies and banks which are stealing your money. The UN didn’t start the trillion dollar (all borrowed from banks) wars…in fact, they refused to authorize the use of force in Iraq and the head of the UN said, as a result, it was an “illegal war.”

      The UN didn’t gamble and lose and force the government/taxpayers to cough up trillions to bail out the banks. The Secy of Treasury was Paulson, head of Goldman Sachs, and Trump’s first choice is Dimon of our largest bank JPMorgan,who is opposed to all regulation and wants to have the same laissez-faire that caused the the worst financial collapse/recession in 80 years, with Bush in his 8 budgets losing millions of private sector jobs and increasing debt by 117%, second only to Reagan who threw a great party on the credit card, tripling the debt and starting a decline in median wages since 1989 of 40%.

      Trump made money by 1) inheriting it 2) getting millions in loans from his KKK dad, and 3) finding a way to sucker other people into putting up the money and then profiting when casinos and others failed, causing 6 bankruptcies. I conclude that when he drives the US bankrupt and makes money, he will say: I’m smart. You are morons. In a 1999 interview, he said people who were not rich were “morons.” That’s what he thinks of you, but you are too stupid to see it. Trump is right!

      • Busdriver Bill

        troll

        • dale ruff

          That’s all you’ve got? Do trolls present evidence and sources or just witless insults?

          • Bill the eighth

            All of your posts are witless insults. Defending the vile, evil and corrupt UN is a clear give-away.

          • Susan O’neill

            You’ve hit the nail on the head Dale – some advice – such morons are incapable of processing complex information when their brain cells(both of them) are not facing in the same direction and it will not be dissimilar fro m bashing your head against a brick wall, so your best course is to ignore them. They (the morons)will of course keep insulting you on the misunderstanding that everyone they disagree with is at the same level of intellect (in their case “lack, thereof”, is probably more appropriate) because they have to have the last word(insult) – let them.
            I have enjoyed many of the intelligent comments on this site, both for and against Trump, your posts have been informative and accurate and therefore, interesting. The other twerps really were not worth your much more valuable time.

          • dale ruff

            “Recent converging studies are showing that liberals tend to have a larger and/or more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC—useful in detecting and judging conflict and error—and conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, where the development and storage of emotional memories takes place.”

            Plato was the first to investigate the relationship of desire, emotion, and reason. ” Emotion and reason have a relationship whereby emotion is subordinate to reason and operates as a function of rationality. Similar to desire, emotion responds to the object of impulse without thought or a system of regard for the overall good of the person as a whole. ”

            That, of course, is why all criminal wars, etc use emotional propaganda, based on fear and revenge, to gain support. After 9/11 about which the government lied (according to the 9/11 Commission), Bush had 92% support, and when his lies were exposed and his military crimes and failed economic policies (based on borrowing for war, tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation of casino banks), his approval plunged into the 20’s.

            Emotion can guide us (rational fear, say of global warming, will guide us to act and minimize the harm) or in the case of the blind and dogmatic (ie the “conservatives”). cripple reason and make those who use it appear as sheep and fools and tools. This is how disaster happen: those who warn are trashed; those who rule do nothing: disaster.

            That is where we are now tho 2/3 of Americans accept AWG as real and want the government to act.
            A recent survey of 40 nations found:
            1)A global median of 51% say climate change is already harming people around the world, while another 28% believe it will do so in the next few years. This view is especially common in Latin America. For instance, fully 90% of Brazilians say climate change is harming people ”
            2) Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem.”

            No one of the deniers has ever disputed or explained why 90
            % of the world’s glaciers are melting, some already gone…nor do they address the effects of this disaster: flooding in some areas, drought in others, water shortages for hundreds of millions. If you dont’ like a fact because it causes cognitive dissonance and emotional pain, attack it (or the messenger) or ignore it.

            Thanks for helping me row our little boat thru this cesspool of ignorance and denial. People are waking up as they feel the effects….but not all.

          • Susan O’neill

            I’m British and in essence, I adopt in part the ideology of Socialism(but not it’s doctrines) and believe that capitalism can be used as a means to an end – as long as you know where to draw the line – “thus far and no farther”. I am vehemently opposed to the corporatism which has taken control of my country, we now have more billionaires in the UK than anywhere else in the world, which is some indictment of our elitist Conservative government’s recklessness in it’s fiscal and economic policies. Such is the situation around the world that I may even consider signing myself over to the Green Party, though Jeremy Corbyn, a centrist who leads the Labour Party is very keen to go green. I would like to say also, that your knowledge of the Global Warming issue is excellent and you have stamina(you needed it arguing with so many knuckleheads on this site)and please keep plugging away, as many who really don’t know the facts, can learn from your comments and make “informed” decisions for themselves.

    • dale ruff

      Trump does NOT have a shell fish bone in his body. He only makes money to show people how corrupt the system is: to put out a fire, hire an arsonist.

  • Ninthlive

    Just who do these clowns think they are? I mean this is frikin’ hilarious!

  • MM59

    It would be foolish to play into the language game.
    Websters definition of “treaty” is “an official agreement that is made between two or more countries or groups”.
    Obama signed a treaty, the Senate has not ratified it, it is not valid until ratified by Senate.
    Trump sends letter and just states it was not ratified in accordance to our laws and constitution – therefore we are not following it.
    End of story.
    If he doesn’t proceed that way – then he is not the so-called brilliant businessman – he is a shill for the TPTB.

    • Obie Miller

      Very well said,MM59!

      • dale ruff

        Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:
        It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent….[4]”

        • MM59

          sounds like you like the “language” game.

          and BTW, I think the
          Paris Agreement was meant to be a long-term commitment, not a one-day
          love-fest of sorts. (“Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II
          treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term
          commitment:”

      • dale ruff

        It is neither well said nor accurate but you agree with it. Bravo,sheep.

    • dale ruff

      Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:
      It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent….[4]” Wiki

      • MM59

        sounds like you like the “language” game.

        and BTW, I think the Paris Agreement was meant to be a long-term commitment, not a one-day love-fest of sorts. (“Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:”

        • dale ruff

          Global warming is not about word games but a dangerously heating earth and ocean. Everything else IS a word game.

    • Busdriver Bill

      Meanwhile, we must walk the razor’s edge for ten weeks.

  • desert

    I guess that ignorant knigger doesn’t know, they have already received satellite information of the earth is cooling! obama and gore and the other lying glob all wurming a.h.’s can now cry themselves to sleep !

    • dale ruff

      I wonder how many at activist post will tolerate racial hatred and ugliness? How many will vote down raw racism?
      Am I the only one who thinks ugly racism is the enemy of freedom, or has activist post become a milder Stormfront? Respond by voting…..

      • Susan O’neill

        Activist Post is attracting some grotesques like desert and his comment, we are seeing this kind of ugliness in the UK with the KKK(National Front Neanderthals)being led by the rings in their tatts and brain dead gormless, vacant expression losers are findings some other idiot friends to play with. The age of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is being sorely tested as I witness, too often, devolution taking place before my very eyes.

        • Bill the eighth

          When you look in the mirror?

          • Susan O’neill

            I am not hampered with your myopic vision, thankfully.

          • Bill the eighth

            I know, you are completely blind. What are you doing on a freedom website when you are clearly a totalitarian collectivist?

  • dale ruff

    Trump isn’t that stupid. He knows global warming is real. Just as he lied about Mexican rapists, dangerous border cities, opposing invasion of Iraq, he is lying for one reason: to pick up the 5% of idiots who deny what 99% of climate scientists accept as empirical reality. How many “morons (as he called those not rich in a 1999 interview) will believe that he knows more than 10,000 scientists in 180 nations, working for private corporations, universities, and governments?

    His latest lie,, after saying he would deport 35 million undocs (there are 11 million, with 4 million US citizens in their households), he know says he will deport the 3 million Mexican criminals (you know, the rapists), while the Bureau of Prisons says that in federal, state, and local prisons and jails there are 173,000.

    But those who who vote for him even if he shot someone in broad daylight are the morons he has pandered to with his lies, and they will believe anything because “I love the poorly educated” because they are such sheep.

    Here’s evidence he knows:
    “Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course
    The billionaire, who called global warming a hoax, warns of its dire effects in his company’s application to build a sea wall.
    By BEN SCHRECKINGER 05/23/16/ politico.com

    “he New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.

    A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.”

    • Busdriver Bill

      I’m beginning to think “Troll” when I see your name.

      • dale ruff

        I am presenting facts and sources; you are making baseless accusations: which describes a troll?

        • michael lawless

          dale aren’t you late for your NAMBLA meeting

          • dale ruff

            I’ll continue with intelligent posts…you can show your lack of both morals and wit.
            We all give what we have to give.

          • Bill the eighth

            How can you continue something you haven’t started?

        • Bill the eighth

          Facts? From Wiki, the UN and the IMF? Hahahahahahahahaha!

      • michael lawless

        you are catching on bill
        dale is in mommies basement trolling all day
        when he is not attending a NAMBLA meeting of course

  • Busdriver Bill

    Is there not a way for the poor citizen to make a citizen’s arrest of this fool of a “Secretary of State?” He is guilty of Treason, for certain, as is his boss the phony Illegal immigrant from Indonesia, Barry Soetoro, alias Barrak (ptui) Hussein (gesundheit) Obama (with my banjo on my knee).
    [If this little silly joke on his name offends some poor sensitive silly-ass, so be it. I am avoiding the Politically Correct tomfoolery like the plague. Whenever I hear that name, I think of spitting and sneezing.]
    WTF has Congress gone and hid? WTF don’t they do something to save our Republic? WTF are we to do about it, buy more Hoppe’s and patches, and keep the bores clean for possible further use?
    I have never, and I hope I never have to – shoot anybody, but the Constitution, and especially the Declaration of Independence give that authority to us all, should there be a rogue government. It’s why the Second Amendment was put there in the first place. We’ve been infiltrated from without, quietly, over the past century since the Federal Reserve Act, and their minions have been in charge most of that time.
    DISCLAIMER TIME: Nothing in this diatribe should be construed as a desire to do harm nor a prompt for others to follow; rather, it is merely conjectural as to how frustrated the good honest and patriotic citizen must feel. I love my country, its citizens, its original goals, and wish to help redirect it back to those. WAKE the F**K up you fools, before it’s all gone.
    [BTW, the “W” in WTF may stand for any number of short words beginning with “W” – where, why, or what, for example.]

  • desertspeaks

    kerry and ovomit can run their mouths all they like, they can sign anything they like but none of that will legally or lawfully apply to anyone other than the morons who signed it.. ie ovomit and kerry!

  • Susan O’neill

    All the climate change deniers can relax. The rate of climate change has accelerated and along with the MPS (Magnetic Pole Shift), will wipe the planet clean of the infestation which is the human race. We were warned that we needed to get the CO2 levels under control by 2015 – beyond that, the carbon based entities, those destroying it and the bystanders trying to survive the human wrought destruction will have no way of saving the current lifeforms (except for about 5% of it) and will begin to die off from hunger mainly. It is possible I might live long enough to witness the day we all realise that we have destroyed humanity’s future and the deniers will still be saying “it ain’t really happening”. Eyes wide shut – have fun explaining it to the kids looking to the adults expecting a supposedly intelligent species to have anything other than their own self interests at heart and finding out they are surrounded by dead heads.

    • michael lawless

      chicken little is that you?
      i like to look back and read the time magazine articles from the 80s and all the dire predictions lol
      wake up chump

      • Susan O’neill

        Eyes wide shut(aka michael lawless)enjoy the ride!

        • Bill the eighth

          Another easily manipulated sheep heard from.

          • dale ruff

            Sheep are handled by the fossil fuel oligarchs who are both making you sick and making you pay for it.

          • michael lawless

            obviously dale you are the one who suffers from a bad case of liberalism
            the worst mental disease known to mankind

          • Susan O’neill

            Sheep provide both wool and meat and are therefore useful. What exactly do you think you can contribute to the greater good? That was a rhetorical question in case you hadn’t caught on.

          • Bill the eighth

            There is no such thing as the ridiculous “greater good”. You are simply just another easily manipulated totalitarian, thinking you have all the answers and have the absolute right to force your insane ideas on the rest of us. Sorry, wrong answer, but thanks for trying to play.

          • dale ruff

            The Constitution mandates that our government promote the greater good.

            The government shall “promote….and provide for the general welfare.”

            Do you reject this formulation? Clean air, an educated population, peace…all are the greater good, the common good, the general welfare…for, as Rousseau first explained, they benefit all.

            Why do you ridicule the Constitution and deny that clean air benefits all?

            Please explain.

          • Bill the eighth

            Just another collectivist term. People ultimately act in their own self interest. So, no there is no such thing as the “greater good”, it is communist. You cling to parental / authority figures, you cannot contemplate a life without someone running it for you. You are in constant need of supervision and buy into whatever the current control scheme of the day happens to be. Amazing!

            I see you are far more uneducated than I originally thought. Please read Lysander Spooner – The Contract of No Authority.

          • dale ruff

            Darwin wrote that the highest stage of evolution is co-operation: selfishness lead to a life short, brutal, and ugly, a war of all against all. Co-operation has been the rule for 99% of our human existence, and only in the past 10,000 years has the moral perversity of selfishness (which all religious leaders condemned) created war, exploitation, mass poverty, and environmental degradation.

            lf your parents had behaved according to your Social Darwinist (a total perversion of Darwins work on sympathy and co-operation, they would have drowned you.

            I have a world class education, since you call me “uneducated” from the top public and to private universities in the world, both giving me fellowships. I have read libertarian Spooner: I agree that government depends on consent of the governed but note that this man who promoted the virtue so private enterprise failed at every business he tried.

            Since you find me “far more uneducated” than you thought, I think it fair for you to tell me where you studied? What is your degree in and where?

            My parents were uneducated (8th grade, then forced to work) but they allowed me to attend the top universities studying under top scholars. I await your response to why YOU are qualified to denigrate my world class education (PBK, scholarship to UCBerkeley, Fellowship to Harvard Graduate School of Government, MFA from Claremont Graduate School of Art.

            I studied under some of the greatest minds of the 20th Century and invite you to look them up at Wikipedia:
            Norman Jacobson
            Paul Seabright
            Carl Freidrich
            Louis Hartz
            William Barrett
            Sidney Hook
            Yoshi Ikeda
            Paul Soldner

            I am proud that I rose out of poor uneducated parents to the highest level of academic achievement. I await your response of what qualifies you to call me uneducated. I suspect you will dodge this and make another personal insult….as is your style.

          • Bill the eighth

            Still beating this dead horse huh? There are several things wrong with your insistence on this asinine nonsense, let me point some out:
            1) This fake scheme will destroy 100,000s of thousands of jobs
            2) Giving the government more money solves nothing, does nothing to ameliorate the fake “warming” and takes more of our rights and choices away.
            3) All of the proponents of this absolute nonsense are liars and hypocrites. Why don’t you or any of your fake heroes lead by example? Why is Al the moron Gore’s carbon footprint larger than 20 average families? Have you given up your car? Your A/C? Your single family home? Your TV? Your computer? Have you moved into a 300 square foot apartment with no A/C and heat to only 60 degrees? Are you willing to make the sacrifices that your masters ordering you to comply refuse to?
            4) Even if we were to accept these wild and unsubstantiated claims and implement every single wet dream of draconian laws, by the admission of your own holy seers, they will have minimum to ZERO impact.

            So, once again I say to you; You are easily manipulated sheeple as proven by your total buy in to the AWG HOAX!

          • dale ruff

            So you with zero classes in climate science have the sheer stupidity to assert you know more than the world’s climate scientists, including those who work for the fossil fuel industry. Your post is, as always, fact free, so I can’t refute your facts, because there are none.

            As far as giving up my car, I would have a hard time, being 75 and battling cancer, getting to the store, which is 7 miles away and even to take a bus would require walking over a mile to get it, and it only comes a few times a day. I just retired 4 yrs ago (and thank you for apologizing for telling me to get a job) and to get to work would have required getting up 4 hours early, walking to the bus stop, going into town, then waiting for another bus, then walking another mile.

            You are desperate to demean me…so I will tell you what I do to protect the planet, which you will of course mock, since that is your style:
            1. I am a vegan for health, moral, and environmental reasons. The environmental reason is that meat such as beef, to produce the same amount of nutritional value, requires 6-9 times more land, water, and fossil fuel fertilizers than the the feedstock (corn, soy) if used as a primary food such as tofu or tempeh. Meat production accounts for about 20% of global warming and fertilizer run off in the Midwest has created a huge dead zone in the Gulf where nothing can live.
            2. I built my own house, using partially wood cut down and milled from the property. I built it to exploit passive solar energy so that it requires very little cooling or heating. Last months’ electricity bill for 4 people was $32.00. I would have solar panels but no one spot gets more than 4 hours of sun.(there is always sunshine somewhere on the property)…..and on my vacation home in Arizona, I am putting up solar panels.
            3. I bought a used Prius, to cut by 2/3 by gas use.
            4. I buy all my clothes, furniture, etc from the thrift store: reuse, recycle, repurpose.
            5 I eat organic food, some grown myself, to protect the earth and my body.
            6. I am an educator who teaches others how to use less energy and live a better life through conservation.
            7. I support politicians and programs which promote green energy, peace (war is the greatest use of fossil fuels), and conservation.
            8. I recycle everything…..

            What do you do for the earth, Bill?

          • Bill the eighth

            Your Projection is showing Dale.

            I have read the positions on both sides and drawn my own conclusion, as any rational, objective person would, that AGW is one ginormous HOAX!

            So you do very little and demand others sacrifice for you.

            1) A vegan huh?

            2) You own two single family homes and have the audacity to claim to be a watermelon?

            3) You buy a Prius? And again you claim to be a watermelon! You don’t even know that the dust to dust environmental impact of a hybrid is over twice that of a normal gas or diesel powered vehicle? You would have been more environmentally friendly by buying a diesel powered VW Jetta.

            4) So you like to give more money to millionaires that exploit their workers? (Goodwill)

            5) I agree, organic is the way to go.

            6) I have no problem with this. I have practiced conservation my whole life.

            7) I do not support any totalitarian collectivist politicians whatsoever. I believe in freedom and liberty, not authoritarianism

            8) I recycle too.

            This is hysterical propaganda designed for one thing and one thing only, to subjugate and control the first world countries. 120 years ago, they were worried about the horse crap problem, filling the streets and no place to put it. That worked itself out and this will too. Just because we can’t stop using carbon for fuel now doesn’t mean that in 20, 50, 100 years we will have an alternative energy source. Everybody should relax, be patient and concentrate on keeping the control freaks grubby hands off of our collective wallets.

          • dale ruff

            “Have you moved into a 300 square foot apartment with no A/C and heat to only 60 degrees? Are you willing to make the sacrifices that your masters ordering you to comply refuse to?”

            I have not! I have moved into the 400 sq ft studio I built myself with no A/C and using about $8 of electricity a month. I have no masters. (Well, I have a Masters of Fine Arts).

            I know all this angers you, and I would ask you to reflect on why. And, by the way, yelling in CAPS doesn’t make your absurd claim that AWG is a hoax true. It just makes you look like a lunatic.

            And everytime I give an honest, documented response, you scream at me and hurl insults. I take that as an admission of defeat, and so, I thank you for giving me the platform to expose the lies of the fossil fuel industry on the scientific illiterates who claim that they know that all the scientists are wrong. BTW, I am waiting for one actual climate scientist who denies global warming. She doesn’t exist.

          • Bill the eighth

            Oh, and we are still waiting for one, just one of the fake computer “models” to get it right.

          • dale ruff

            The Koch funded Berkeley Earth Project by climate skeptic Dr. Muller, which was intended to expose flaws or fraud in the official temperature records, found they were absolutely accurate with no skewing or distortion. I gave you the link…but you are terrified of knowledge. Global warming is not a model but an empirical fact; the melting of 90% of the world’s glaciers is not a model but a fact. How sad you, my friend (I treat all by the Golden Rule (including animals) of treating as I wish to be treated, so I treat all as friends.).

            The Exxon climate scientists (I provided the link but you are afraid to face the truth) also discovered AWG but Exxon buried it for profit reasons and funded the anti-science propaganda that people like you, with no background climate science, have swallowed.

            I urge you to check out the Berkeley Earth Project and read Richard Muller’s oped in the NYTimes…it’s a click or two away if you want to discuss the issue, you have to be familiar with the scientific literature.

            Do you know that flights into space, etc etc are all based on computer models since no one can go out and measure in space……..computer models are sometimes off but through peer-review, they are corrected, and that is why Science has progressed for over 500 years (actually going back to Aristotle, and Aristarchus (who discovered the earth revolved around the sun)………………and that is why it works.

            “While most of those who hold that the whole heaven is finite say that the earth lies at the center, the philosophers of Italy, the so-called Pythagoreans, assert the contrary. They say that in the middle there is fire, and that the earth is one of the stars, and by its circular motion round the center produces night and day.

            Aristotle, ((384 BC – 322 BC)”

            Everything we eat, even the fossilized plants we burn, were all created by solar energy. In ancient Rome, there was a law prohibiting construction of a building that blocked “solar access” as passive solar heated the homes.

            At first flash of Eden, We race down to the sea.
            Standing there on Freedom’s shore.
            Waiting for the sun
            Jim Morrison 1970

            I urge you to study the links I provided which are by climate skeptics and fossil fuel companies so we can have an intelligent conversation.

          • Bill the eighth

            Look Dale, I have read all of the positions on both sides, I know AGW is a hoax and I also know that all of the “solutions” if implemented today, would result in a decrease of maybe 1/100th of a degree in the next 100 years. So, you want to kill 100,000s of jobs, devastate the entire country and impoverish millions of people for a reduction of 1/100th of a degree in average temperature over the next 100 years?

            I am NOT going to pay carbon taxes, period, end of story. Why you feel you have the right to send men with guns to my home to enforce your junk science is simply breathtaking and completely alien to me. Again, you are a totalitarian.

          • dale ruff

            People who reject science and buy the oligarch’s propaganda call those who accept science and facts sheep. Mirror effect. Denial/projection.

          • Susan O’neill

            Naomi Kline published a work called “This Changes Everything” a couple of years ago, it was extremely informative especially the extensive research she did. If you haven’t already read it you would enjoy it. Too much information for the “Eyes Wide Shut” brigade here, I doubt they’d get past the introduction and wouldn’t be able to assimilate the information even if they did (not that their closed minds, unwilling to accept that which can be proven, evidenced and truth to fact based would) they would still spout their rubbish based on nothing at all.

          • dale ruff

            If sheep are those who accept evidence and science, it is a badge of honor. What are your sources…you have provided zero documentation, evidence, or sources….just cheap shots….you are both blind and lazy.

            Check out the sources I provided and argue with them.

          • Bill the eighth

            I have read all of the BS coming out of the crazy camp, yet you only read crap that confirms your bias. You are insane, you have presented nothing new, just the same old tired nonsense, long debunked. You are losing, more and more people have come to the same conclusion, you people are nuts, you want total control and you enjoy being a slave to those you think are better than you. You are nothing but a sad, pathetic follower.

        • michael lawless

          well ms little if the bs you spew form your pie hole was true the urban jungles will be the first to die off so i ask you whats the problem?

          • dale ruff

            If you have no rational response, blow up with racism and crude language.

          • michael lawless

            troll

          • dale ruff

            If you have no rational response, call the person who won the argument with superior evidence a troll. That is the first rule of trolling.

          • michael lawless

            well you certainly would know the trolls rules

          • dale ruff

            Yes, I have studied how you trolls operate, with fact free accusations and smears in a sentence or fragment…it takes a lot of work to assemble the kind of information I share with you; it takes nothing but kneejerk to troll. I also know the way fascism works, as result of 55 years of anti-fascist activity.

            ““If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

            ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

            Oncologists who study the “rules” of cancer are not causing it but learning now it operates in order to cure it.

            The Sun Tzu insight shows why you are such a loser that the only way you can participate is through serial trolling. I await your troll response..

            Here is what I have learned: that when people troll (always in a fact free short burst), they have no facts to present…and so they throw insults, an admission of defeat. You are busted.

          • Susan O’neill

            Eyes Wide Shut – my pie hole is probably located closer to my brain than my feet a

      • dale ruff

        You are of course lying The consensus of scientists was that it was not, and the few who made these speculations have admitted they were wrong. Wake up, chump.
        “…..these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.”

        Wake up, chump. Exxon, which has spent millions to deny climate science, was one of the first to discover (through it’s own climate scientists) that global warming was real (in the 70’s this was) and burning fossil fuels was the primary cause. Exxon buried the science and for profit motives funded propaganda denying what they knew to be true. Look it up.

        90% of the world’s glaciers are melting or melted, causing both flooding and water shortages and sea level rising. That’s am empirical fact effecting hundreds of millions.

        Get out of the fossil fuel propaganda cesspool of lies and learn the science. The sky isn’t falling; it’s just getting warmer and warmer.

        • Bill the eighth

          You actually buy into the ridiculous “Consensus” argument? Hahahahahaha, now that is FUNNY!

          • dale ruff

            Yes, I prefer the knowedge of actual scientists.
            Several studies have found 97% accept
            AWG (including the 70’s Exxon scientists and the team that Koch hired to prove it wrong), and the other 3% say they want to see more evidence. None denies global warming. What’s funny is that a totally ignorant person is laughing at experts in 180 nations. That is tragically funny.

        • michael lawless

          TROLL

          • dale ruff

            Presenting evidence is trolling. Thank you.

  • L Garou

    Let me guess .. stammering and stuttering all the way..
    He’s a child compared to Trump..

  • Undecider

    Congress can stop the President at any time.

  • Jo Peter

    An executive agreement only has weight until the end of that executive’s term… If other nations want anything more than a gentleman’s agreement that the executive is powerless to actually enforce within the U.S. they need it ratified, otherwise it’s toilet paper at the end of Obama’s term and they know it.

  • Pacemaker4

    GOP is in control….settle down. Nothing quick is going to happen. Slow trickle. Like the professional suicide of 5000 journalists world wide.
    MSM too big to fail?
    DNC too big to fail? Bernie could start the progressive party/

  • littljo

    The no-name potus is such a good widdle puppet. Must please the goat worshiping Georgie Sorryios.
    Soros is wanted dead or alive in Russia.
    Trump will have him deported.
    Sacrifice the goat.

  • Chris

    Well, if Obama bypasses Congress on the Paris climate deal because it claims it is not a “treaty” but rather an “executive agreement”, President Trump can easily write it out, along with all the other unconstitutional EOs. No problem.

  • GeraldWilhite

    We need a more effective way to maintain peace and prosperity than the present UN. It will have to be respected by a vast majority of Earth’s citizens. Unfortunately today’s UN is a disorganized global chamber of commerce.

    I read somewhere that the original UN concept called for some sort of global representative elected body, but the task was supposedly assigned to a committee and never heard from again. Is this true? If so, does anybody know what happened?

  • AnotherLover

    It’s easy to limit the warming to 2 degrees since that’s all that’s predicted max from CO2.

  • rolloverandplaydead

    and he will attempt the same with the Small Arms Treaty…

  • The US has ratified nothing. That requires the two-thirds concurrence of the Senate, which hasn’t even seen this proposed “treaty.” So unless the Senate suffers a sudden outbreak of mass insanity, the incoming Trump Administration can merely dismiss it, like any of Obama’s other executive actions.

  • Not everyone is telling the same story.

    The TPP is on its deathbed – and it’s because of digital rights advocates like you.

    Be a part of the next victory: Join the movement for free expression and the open Internet at https://act.openmedia.org/defendfreeexpression

  • dale ruff

    A source is only as good as its own sources. Those who claim a source is lying are obligated to provide evidence. If you call me a liar, I do not have to prove I am telling the truth, but you have the moral and intellecual obligation to back up your accusation. If you cannot, you are at risk of being convicted of libel.

    We are, in our tradition, innocent until proved guilty. It is for those blaming to prove guilt. If I say here that you are a child molester, it is for me to provide evidence, since you cannot prove you are not.

    None of us first hand knowledge of 99% of the issues we discuss, which is why we need to provide sources and if we question them, provide evidence that they are flawed. I am the King of fact-checking, and that why I don’t lose arguments (I reduce people who dislike what I say to cursing and trolling, an admission of defeat): I study hard, reading perhaps 10 hrs a day with a very excellent education in critifcal thinking and research; then I report what I have learned; when attacked, I provide my sources.

    Then, the sources are attacked, without regard to primary sources.
    This is known as a logical fallacy. When you stand with the facts, you cannot be knocked over.

    If you question the sources, you must go to other sources to provide criticism…so that is why it is important to go to primary sources and have an educated standard of what a valid source is.

    • desertspeaks

      is this you providing evidence that your sources are accurate and you can personally attest to their veracity?? FAIL!

      • dale ruff

        I said check the sources.

        • desertspeaks

          and yet I find taking your word for anything, dubious at best.. you’ll actually have to prove the veracity of your claim. or just go away because I’m fairly certain you’re a liar! IF as you claim, you checked the sources, you would have inundated me with your facts, instead of vox et praeterea nihil

          • dale ruff

            If you don’t trust the sources I give, check them out and prove that I have misquoted them or that they don’t support the claims I make.

            And I did provide the sources in context of responding to someone else. I wrote
            “To criticize the article, you have to show that the sources are fraudulent.

            Since you are too lazy or uneducated to check sources, I will provide the sources for the comment quoted:
            1. The Constitution: Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2
            2. The Supreme Court: See Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540
            3. Treaties and other International Agreements: the Role of the United States Senate (Congressional Research Service 2001).

            I suspect that even when I give my sources, you will deny them. Will you agree that the sources I provide are valid? Go back and read the posts to get the context and then, respond, and admit that you had shot from the hip without reading back for context.

            Your brief outbursts have no facts at all. I I will quote what a section in which I provided many sources:
            ” then Trump can say forget it, we quit the UN, using his Executive Powers
            1 • Reply•Share ›
            Avatar
            dale ruff ComeOn1 • 3 days ago
            1. “American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009. H.R. 1146, 2009-02-24, originally H.R. 1146, 1997-03-20., a bill to end U.S. membership in the UN, was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Republican Ron Paul in 2005. Such measures have failed to pass by large margins.
            Organizations supporting U.S. withdrawal from the UN include:
            John Birch Society (called President Eisenhower a “paid agent of the Communist Party.”)
            Constitution Party (The party believes that the United States is a Christian state founded on the basis of the Bible and that jurisprudence should be restored to what the party claims is its “Biblical foundations”.[17] Its critics have described it—and its predecessor, the U.S. Taxpayers Party—as a theocratic and dominionist party.”

            How ironic that the Constitution Party should have the same platform as the Taliban and Sharia Law and deny the Law of the Land, per the Constitution, for in 1797, the President Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty constitutionally recognized as “the law of the land”
            “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

            “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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any …
            Article VI | Constitution

            The President cannot repeal laws. That is unconstitutional, and that’s the legal situation.
            Strategically, it would leave the UN Security Counsel under control of Russia and China…possibly idiotic in terms of national security.

            It is not the UN but NATO (designed to block the Soviet Union, which has not existed for 27 years) which the US should exit. The US has a defense budget of a trillion a year; Russia spends 50 million (cut 10% last year) or 5% of what the US spends.

            Trump even said that NATO was obsolete, before the generals had a talk with him and he came out and said “I am a big fan of NATO.” So his views are pliable, depending on who talks to him. He was right in the first instant: NATO is obsolete, since both Bush I and Reagan promised the Russians, in exchange for their disbanding the Warsaw Pact, that NATO (which the US controls) would not move one inch east and gobble up the former Warsaw Pact Nations. Since then, all 11 have “joined” NATO, and at this time, they are playing war games with tanks and nuclear missiles on the border of Russia. the “aggressor.”

            How would the US react if Russia had tanks and nukes on our Canadian and Mexican borders….would we then be the agresser if we sent our troops to those borders. Such saber rattling only serves to embolden the hardliners in Russia to demand more weapons, more force….and arms race, historically, according to a study of 2000 arms races over 2000 years, leads to war 98% of the time.

            Executive power, which has been growing since 9/11, cannot make laws or repeal them, and treaties are “the supreme law of the land.” A President who sought to violate the supreme law of the land would guilty of high crimes and impeached.

            We don’t need no stinking tyrants, taking the law into their own hands.
            1 • Edit• Reply•Share ›
            Avatar
            ComeOn1 dale ruff • 3 days ago
            Oh well, Obama-style Executive Privilege has now been established.
            1 • Reply•Share ›
            Avatar
            dale ruff ComeOn1 • 9 hours ago
            “The WSJ reported: “A 2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%.” When people blame Obama for acting as all other Presidents have, it raises the suspicion of racism. Did you criticize Bush for his even more executive orders including those which destroyed basic rights to privacy…did you speak out when he lied about iraq?

            I always fact check before I write, and I have the best education in the world for critical thinking, scholarship, etc…..so, I expect, if you have any integrity, that would apologize. I expect you would rather argue than learn…so unless you are willing to read back for context, please don’t waste my time. In a discussion, I give sources, etc and then when someone else who hasn’t read back, I will not waste time repeating what I already presented.

            I am making an exception for you, in the belief you really want to learn and will, like me, admit it when you are wrong.

            Liars think everyone else lies. Sir, I do not need to lie..in my education through the top public and private universities in the world, I never needed to cheat. I don’t lie and that is why your belief is wrong. If you catch a mistake (we all make mistakes), I will thank you for correcting me. If you can show that I am lying, I will make a public apology…if you will do the same. I inundated Bill the Bus driver with facts and sources which he called bullshit….I will not repeat them, except for this partial exception for you. In exchange, you need to go back and read the development so that you can confirm that I provide more documentation and sources than anyone, with the result that no one ever refutes me factually but rather blows up in insults, a sign of defeat.

            So when I write “American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009. H.R. 1146, 2009-02-24, originally H.R. 1146, 1997-03-20.as a source, are you claiming I made it up. Just highlight it and click to Google and in 2 seconds, you will find it. I can’t prove in a post that this source exists…other than to go the source and repeat it to you. If you think I made it up, you can make total fool out of me, rather than yourself, by checking and proving me wrong.

            To repeat: when you have strong intellectual training and no reason to lies, you don’t.

            You may not believe me because you are projecting your intellectual sins onto me.

          • desertspeaks

            If I catch a mistake? ok, you must have missed that executive agreements/executive orders are not an authority granted to anyone in the Constitution and are therefore null and void, see Marbury v Madison.
            Unless you can show everyone where within the body of the US Constitution is says otherwise.. can you??

          • dale ruff

            I wrote pages on this with numerous sources, such as
            “Treaties require approval; agreements do not.

            ” Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:
            It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent….” Wiki

            You may not like it but that is existing law.’

            And I wrote:””It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent..” Jefferson

            Thank you for bringing up this 200 yr old opinion: it clearly does not discuss sole-executive agreements but rather treaties, which require approval, and legislative acts by Congress.

            You have misread his opinion, which does not even refer to executive agreements. Treaties are “legally binding” while executive agreements are politically binding.

            The WSJ reported: “A 2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%.”

            And more, all of which you missed, so you are a total waste of time: I asked you to go back and you obviously didn’t. Get outta here!

          • desertspeaks

            nice dodge of my question.. so you can’t actually point out the authority for such actions in the Constitution, right??

  • dale ruff

    The Koch brothers, with 100 billion, are globalists with multinational businesses and have spent tens of millions to deny climate science including a study by Dr. Muller, a climate skeptic, which proved govt temperature data is totally accurate. They oppose curbs on pollution and emissions because it would harm their bottom line. Under current laws, the trillions in cost for the damage done by fossil fuel burning (which kills millions, sicken hundreds of millions) is shifted to the taxypayer through govt subsidies and to the individual through higher healthcare premiums.

    Exxon, which has also spent tens of millions to deny climate science, actually discovered it in 1981 but buried it to protect profits.

    Carbon taxes have not raised taxes but have cleaned the air and created jobs (renewable energy jobs are booming). BC’s law is specifically revenue-neutral.

    So you are repeating lies by billionaires seeking to protect their right to pollute and increase their 100 billion fortune, started when their father helped Stalin develop Soviet oil, and then they helped Hitler.

    “All great fortunes are built on great crimes.”‘
    That is why they love the poorly educated, who will defend them as their pockets are being picked.

    These oligarchs know that climate change is real, since their own scientists have proved it, but they put private profit above the health of the entire world……you need to turn your anger to those who have filled your mind with lies.

    • Chris Freethinker

      The TRUTH? You wouldn’t UNDERSTAND the truth if it walloped you upside the head from a passing express train. Really. Man produced, and now somehow controllable & manipulable climate change is so far from the most important issue of our times anyway. . . when we have still 4 reactors at Fukushima burning through our planet, nuclear war and destruction staring ourselves in the face, uncountable other REAL environmental problems at hand. . .and the con has become SO ingrained in you and so many others by now, that you even believe your own bullshit. You don’t understand. Frontman Al Gore MOVED THE DECIMAL POINT (so it’s been AT the very LEAST exaggerated by 10X). And the geo-engineering that has been going on for over 15 years is just another example of how they want to try to CREATE the very scenario that they have (in grand globalist style—with an adjoining carnival con). . .rolled out . And that even YOU are sitting here promoting like a dodo bird.

      • dale ruff

        I’ve heard that cliche before! How sad that you are unable to carry on an intelligent conversation. You are probably half-way decent in person, but the cybercloak provides cover for your darkest side.

        It was not scientists (whose research was the basis of Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (how prophetic!) but a UK judge with zero background in science, let alone climate science. He claimed the book contained 9 lies, and instead of inviting climate scientists to testify, he ruled that while he would not ban the documentary in schools, he would require that teachers explain that it was false.

        “Continued high emissions of heat-trapping gases could launch a disintegration of the ice sheet within decades, according to a study published Wednesday, heaving enough water into the ocean to raise the sea level as much as three feet by the end of this century.

        With ice melting in other regions, too, the total rise of the sea could reach five or six feet by 2100, the researchers found. That is roughly twice the increase reported as a plausible worst-case scenario by a United Nations panel just three years ago.” Justin Gills, award-winning environmental journalist for the NYTimes, with study in climate science at MIT and Harvard. The Judge studied law at Balliol College.

        Among his rulings (judges ruling on science?) was that there was no evidence of rising sea levels.
        “The Carteret Islanders of Papua New Guinea have become the world’s first entire community to be displaced by climate change. They’re the first official refugees of global warming–and they’re packing up their lives to move out of the way of ever-rising waters that threaten to overtake their homes and crops. The island they call home will be completely underwater by 2015.

        On the Carterets, king tides have washed away their crops and rising sea levels poisoned those that remain with salt. The people have been forced to move.
        That report comes from the Ecologist, one of only a handful of media outlets to cover the story, and the only one to have a reporter on hand to witness the evacuation.”

        Here’s another (there are many already evacuating or preparing to):
        “The tiny island country of Tuvalu, halfway between Hawaii and Australia, is already experiencing lowland flooding that is contaminating their drinking water and decreasing food production, and erosion from the rising water is eating away their land.
        They have already asked Australia and New Zealand to accept its 11,000 citizens, but neither country has agreed to do so.”

        (Tuvalu, with 10,000, was one of the 11 nations (including 3 other tiny islands) in Bush’s Coalition of the Willing that supported invading Iraq: Tuvalue sent a box of coconuts for the troops.)

        90% of the worlds glaciers are melting, some already gone, leading to both flooding and drought and water shortages for hundreds of millions. Where do you think that water goes?

        When judges decide what is science, we are in the world of Stalin. scientific progress is based on perpetual skepticism by peer review, and every effort to politicize science, such as judges denouncing what the world’s climate scientists have discovered, has produced bad science and regression.

        I rely on the world’s climate scientists; you prefer infowars. I promote peace and justice. I prefer science and facts. So shoot me.

        • Chris Freethinker

          Look, maybe you can understand just this. Whatever level of priority mankind needs to give this particular meme: Climate Change, would (and this just is not right!) require mankind to abridge his own right to live his own life with a basic liberty . . .human rights. . .such. . .that to implement the Climate Change program would, under their taxation scheme, allow them to require mankind to be in an ever tightening “at their mercy” giving over position. It would be an ever tightening control grid because they could then evolve their own funded operation of ultimate domination to infinity. But they have already proven their intent is dishonorable by now, haven’t they? With the spraying, lying about science, etc, & etc. They could give a rat’s a$$ about the environment! (Fool me once, shame on me, etc. .) Climate Change (the meme) is a fool hardy policy to follow any way you look at it, rationally & fairly

          • dale ruff

            There is no right to pollute and destroy human health and the environment.

            There is a right to breathable air and clean water.

            Climate change is not “a fool hardy (sic) policy” but the result of global warming. Today in the news, it is reported the the Artic has areas 35 degrees above normal and that
            Global Warming has gobbled up a chunk of ice the size of Alaska. Look it up; it’s in today’s news.

            In British Columbia, the carbon tax law states that the tax polluters pay must be refunded to consumers so that it falls only on the polluters and no government programs are funded by it.

            So no one is losing their rights, since I think you agree no one has a right to poison or destroy the environment. If you would have a free mind, you would stop resisting reality. The people who created this revenue neutral program, where the tax goes to the consumer, are all democratically elected. Those who seek to block such laws are using corporate tyranny to poison you and then charging you for it.

            How would you curb pollution which knows no boundaries? How do you explain that 90% of the world’s glaciers are melting and some are now totally gone? We can’t have an intelligent conversation unless you address such realities.

          • Chris Freethinker

            “all democratically elected” my left nut, you lying moron!

          • dale ruff

            If you tell the truth or report accurately, there is no need to lie. Moron is what Trump in a NYTimes interview in 1999 called those who are not rich. So by Trump’s definition, tho am very comfortable and own 3 homes and have an income about 3K more than needed to pay the bills, I am a moron. So are you.

            Public opinion polls in 2007 showed that the environment had replaced the economy and healthcare at the most important issue to a majority of respondents. This cultural change, brought about by greater media and political attention both inside and outside of Canada, changed the political dynamic of British Columbia. Traditionally the left-leaning BC New Democratic Party (NDP) had been seen as the greener of the two largest parties, as opposed to the more free market BC Liberal Party. However in 2008 it was the Liberals who introduced the carbon tax and tax shift, which was thought to be a more market-friendly method of regulating carbon than the competing idea of cap-and-trade which the NDP supported. During the 2009 British Columbia election the NDP as well at the BC Conservatives made repealing the carbon tax part of their platform, but the Liberals won another majority government.”

            The British Columbia Liberal Party is a conservative provincial political party in British Columbia. The tax goes from polluter to consumer with no use for government programs; it was promoted by the conservatives. That’s the truth. Look it up. Oh, I forgot you already know everything.

          • Chris Freethinker

            You just lied. Not Trump. You think by deflecting the lie onto Trump you can escape it. . .just like ALL “willing to cheat to win” libs EVERY SINGLE CHANCE THEY GET!

            1

          • dale ruff

            Globalism is the richest corporations in history (fossil fuel multinationals) shifting 5 trillion a year in costs to the consumer and taxpayer. See the IMF analysis of costs of subsidies, damage to human health, the environment, etc. The globalists are the corporatocracy.

  • dale ruff

    In British Columbia it was the public supporting the conservative carbon tax which enacted the law in 2008. All revenues go back to consumers, with no money for government projects. Sucker sucker…..name calling is not rational discourse, my friend. Who are the suckers when the tax goes to the people?

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Send this to a friend