Obama: Leaving the Paris Agreement is Anti-Democratic?

Obama and Trump

President Obama. By Official White House Photo by Pete SouzaP120612PS-0463 (direct link), Public Domain, Link. President-elect Trump. By Michael Vadon – →This file has been extracted from another file: Donald Trump August 19, 2015.jpg, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Ex-President Obama seems to have suggested in a speech that tearing up the Paris Agreement is a symptom of “an aggressive kind of nationalism” which threatens Democracy. My question – why doesn’t Obama mention all the greens who seem to think Democracy is an impediment to environmental progress?

Obama warns against ‘aggressive’ nationalism, leaving Paris climate agreement

BY ALICIA COHN – 07/01/17 07:41 AM EDT

Former President Obama on Saturday issued a strong warning against the new trend toward “an aggressive kind of nationalism” and emphasized the importance of the Paris climate agreement, which the U.S. plans to break.

Obama called out at least one of his successor’s policy changes without mentioning President Trump by name.

Otherwise, he warned, “We start seeing a rise in sectarian politics, we start seeing a rise in an aggressive kind of nationalism, we start seeing both in developed and developing countries an increased resentment about minority groups and the bad treatment of people who don’t look like us or practice the same faith as us.”

He went on to note “the temporary absence of American leadership” on fighting climate change.

“In Paris, we came together around the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change,”

“If we don’t stand up for tolerance and moderation and respect for others, if we begin to doubt ourselves and all that we have accomplished, then much of the progress that we have made will not continue,” he said.

“What we will see is more and more people arguing against democracy, we will see more and more people who are looking to restrict freedom of the press, and we’ll see more intolerance, more tribal divisions, more ethnic divisions, and religious divisions and more violence,” he continued.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/340342-obama-warns-against-aggressive-nationalism-leaving-paris

Can anyone think of a single mainstream climate skeptic who opposes Democracy?

Unfortunately I have not located a copy of ex-President Obama’s full speech. But even if my impression of what Obama said is wrong, it seems pretty cheeky for Obama to mix opposition to climate advocacy and accusations of threats to Democracy in the same speech, given the number of prominent greens who seem to think Democracy is not up to the job of saving us from Climate Change.

etc.

Advertisements

185 thoughts on “Obama: Leaving the Paris Agreement is Anti-Democratic?

  1. “”Former NASA GISS Chairman James Hansen praises the Chinese dictatorship’s ability to take “the long view” on climate change.””

    Too funny – the ‘long view’ is to do nothing for 13 years while encouraging and then watching the economies of the climate change religionists crumble.

    • Yeah, such a statement from a man who would have been killed if he did his protesting in China.

      • The contrast could not possibly be more clear: While Trump delivered one of his most inspiring, traditionally patriotic speeches EVER, emphasizing veterans’ sacrifices for freedom and protection of free worship by all, Obama is in Indonesia (since he wouldn’t DARE give that speech here!) dissing his successor’s leadership, whining about a failed Ponzi scheme and decrying “nationalism.” As opposed to Globalism, ruled by the gnomes of Brussels and Davos, I suppose? A major law of Nature is cause and effect–Obama was one major cause of the Trump effect. This is even more fun than Ronald Reagan!
        MAGA!!!!!

    • Well Obama of all people ought to know about what is un-democratic, as he was the dictator who “committed” the USA to pay for this boondoggle without Senatorial approval of the “treaty”, as required by the laws of the USA.

      G

      • So it isn’t a treaty. Not without that vote. It’s an agreement. Which is why Trump could reverse it. ;-)

      • Obama apparently thinks that not following the Democratic process is the best way to preserve our Democracy. Using that logic, it becomes clear that not following the Paris Agreement is the best way to preserve the Paris Accord.

    • Hi, great comments as usual on this site, makes me feel a bit better to realize others can see it as well. I just wanted to get this up the top of the list as no-one is mentioning it,. The NOAA paper that Obama took to the Paris accord is known as the “Pause Buster” paper, and is an intentional fraud. Whistleblowers have come forward and NOAA has already destroyed the computers to hide the extent of their lies and state that they cannot replicate the pause buster lie. Nature magazine who foolishly believed this crap were made to look pathetic and amateurish and in their embarrassment have changed their rules to state that they will no longer print articles that cannot be reproduced…..that’s right, Nature magazine had to change its rules because Obama knowingly presented a fraudulent paper to them and then to the rest of the world. Wow!
      Obama is the greatest fraudster in the history of the planet, and now happily does the bidding of that most repulsive slug Soros…a man who in an interview I saw said that the happiest days of his life were in the summer of 42, when he was with the Nazis going around Hungary turfing Jews out of their homes and stealing all their stuff…Merkel, Macron, Soros, Obama and the Clinton Crime Family, these disgusting people will take your democracy and wipe their vile asses on it.
      Don’t forget the pause buster paper, it is the basis for the entire French accord and is a massive intentional lie, it needs to go before a Congressional investigation….NOW!
      Thanks, irritable Bill.

      • Good post Bill. I wasn’t aware that Soros was that old. Unless he has figured out a way of turning his money into immortality he shouldn’t by buying paid professional protesters too much longer.

  2. This coming from a man who wasted 8 years of energy and economic development potential.
    Trump has done more in 8 months!

    • The MSM swoons when he criticizes Trump, Most people don’t know what he is talking about.

    • Actually the Europeans and the others looking for a handout were pretty stupid to trust this person, who did not have the authority to sign on to this terrible agreement without Ratification from the Senate. They surely knew he was overstepping his power and that the Senate would never ratify the agreement if requested.
      How desperate were they to overlook our Constitution.
      Besides if they listened to the EIA they would be more cautious about ignoring the lack of a replacement for carbon based fossil fuels.
      http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/energy-technology-is-not-advancing-fast-enough-to-meet-climate-goals.html

      • They were expecting Hillary to win the election. If she won, we’d still be in the agreement, handing out cash to all sort of countries.

      • Catcracking,

        […] this person, who did not have the authority to sign on to this terrible agreement without Ratification from the Senate.

        Oh yes he did. The US Constitution gives a US President the authority–the sole right–to determine and make foreign policy decisions. That’s a US President’s only real power, actually. Read the Constitution. He can write all the “agreements” he wants. Since all treaties trump US law, however, he cannot create treaties that affect American lives without a vote of 2/3 of the Senate.

        The US government is constitutionally divided into three equal and mutually independent branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial (the US Founders did this to prevent dictatorships or kingdoms). A US President has zero power over the Legislative: Congress (House and Senate). He has zero power over the Judicial: the US courts.

        A US President is head of the Executive branch. He has as much power as the heads of the Senate/House. He has as much power as the head of the Supreme Court. They are his co-equals in running the US domestic government, something few know these days because we no longer teach Civics to our Snowflakes.

        The US Constitution did, however, endow a US President with powers the Legislative and Judicial branches do not have. Because a US President unlike, say, the Prime Ministers of Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and Israel, etc. is Head of State.

        Most countries in the world separate the functions of Head of Government and Head of State. Not the US.

        Our Prez can do whatever the hell he wants. What he can’t do is foist it upon, or force it upon, US citizens without the approval of the 2/3 of the senior body of the Legislative: the Senate. And if the American people don’t like what the Legislative have done in their name, they can take the matter up with the Judicial branch and get it changed. That’s how segregation ended, for example, and women got the vote.

      • MRW,

        True, but he can not spend a dime without the approval beforehand of the US Congress through an appropriation. He sent money to the scheme without that approval, making him in violation of the constitution. Someone should sue him to make him personally responsible for that unlawful appropriation of US Treasury funds! The rub – the courts wouldn’t grant anyone standing in such a suit.

      • My understanding is the last $500M he gave the UN was taken from a slush fund and he didn’t need approval from anyone. Another Democrat sleaze play that they consider canny politics that the totally, totally incompetent Republican machine failed to realize until it was too late.

      • Owen in GA,

        True, but he can not spend a dime without the approval beforehand of the US Congress through an appropriation. He sent money to the scheme without that approval, making him in violation of the constitution.

        He cannot spend a dime on those actions that are within Congress’ enumerated powers, to put it in its simplest terms.

        But Congress’ enumerated powers do not include a President’s ”executive agreements” with foreign powers.

        A President can negotiate “executive agreements” with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation (or approval or knowledge, even). Remember when Nixon piled himself, Kissinger, a few staffers, Secretary of State? and a Foreign Service translator (Chas Freeman) into Air Force One and took off for Beijing in 1971 or 72? And he did it in the dead of night without anyone knowing? Or approving? He opened relations with China completely on his own, or telegraphing it to Congress who could have obstructed his actions by passing laws to stop him. The world, and especially the American press, were in shock.

        The US Treasury is a branch of the Executive, and the President can authorize the US Treasury to fund his foreign executive agreements without the approval of Congress. Congress has no power over the Head of State. The only power of The People is to vote him out of office.

        Is all this messy? Yes. Time-consuming? Absolutely, bordering on tedious and annoying sometimes. The Founders designed our system of government this way on purpose. Each branch of our government provides a check-and-balance on the other branches. But the President has some powers that are exclusive to him (her), and that’s why he’s the head honcho.

      • Markl,

        […] that the totally, totally incompetent Republican machine failed to realize until it was too late.

        True. Because our Republican machine is too busy–like John McCain and his lady Lindsey Graham–meddling in foreign affairs that the President has sole dominion over, and failing to do domestic fiscal policy, which Congress does have dominion over and should be enacting. Or sucking up to their banking donors–collectively, how many billion now? I forget–to reduce the fund-raising strain that preoccupies their entire times in DC or they won’t get re-elected. So they leave the important stuff to 24-year-old assistants who know boo-eff-all about what they are doing (ever worked there? I have) or are hired, or place, by outside influences to push the “outside influence’s” agenda.

        It is my contention that the blame for our present predicament lies not with the president, whether the co-opted Bush Jr., the ineffectual and intensely disappointing Obama, or even the present guy. [And don’t get me started with Clinton, B.]

        It rests with Congress, the people you and I elected to represent us. The problem lies with us not knowing what the hell we are doing.

      • “The US Treasury is a branch of the Executive, and the President can authorize the US Treasury to fund his foreign executive agreements without the approval of Congress. Congress has no power over the Head of State. The only power of The People is to vote him out of office.”

        No he damn well cannot. ALL spending must be authorized by Congress. They (arguably) can delegate some details to the Executive, but the President cannot simply decide to spend money on anything he wants.

      • Tsk Tsk,

        ALL spending must be authorized by Congress.

        All domestic spending.

        They (arguably) can delegate some details to the Executive

        No they don’t delegate a damn thing to the Executive (nor would they). The Constitution delineates what the President can do.

        but the President cannot simply decide to spend money on anything he wants.

        Of course not. You’re right. But the President does have 100% authority over foreign activities he authorizes. And it is within his power as head of the Executive branch to use the Executive branch’s US Treasury to make it happen. And he does not need Congressional approval to do it.

      • “Of course not. You’re right. But the President does have 100% authority over foreign activities he authorizes. And it is within his power as head of the Executive branch to use the Executive branch’s US Treasury to make it happen. And he does not need Congressional approval to do it.”

        MRW – Congress has the sole authority under the US constitution to appropriate funds – Your second and third sentence are incorrect.

      • The president has the authority to set policy, but he needs congressional approval to fund it.
        That’s why it’s congress that sets the military’s budget, not the president, even though the president is the commander in chief.

      • Joe,

        MRW – Congress has the sole authority under the US constitution to appropriate funds>
        Yes. It does. But only domestically.

      • Should read;

        Joe,

        MRW – Congress has the sole authority under the US constitution to appropriate funds

        Yes. It does. But only domestically.

      • President Lincoln introduced the Greenback (1863?) during his term to avoid the 35% interest the Rothschild group of banks wanted to charge us for help during the Civil War. Lincoln did not need Congressional approval. Lincoln’s action was later challenged in the Supreme Court. It led to the decade-long Legal Tender Cases which established once and for all that whatever the US federal government determined was legal tender in addition to the “coin” written in the Constitution would be legally accepted as the “unit of account” of the United States of America.

        FDR used federal funds (via the US Treasury) to track German submarines along the eastern coasts of Canada and the US for two years before we entered the war with Japan in 1941. FDR did not require congressional approval.

        In 1975, Nixon and Kissinger used US Treasury funds—without congressional approval—to fund US companies that would establish themselves in Saudi Arabia to secure their oil supply. This was part of the 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

      • Luis,

        The situation changed dramatically after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. From 1950, Aramco had been sharing profits 50/50 with the Saudis. But, after US support for Israel during the war, the Saudi Arabian government acquired a 25% stake in Aramco. It increased its shareholding to 60% by 1974, and finally took full control of Aramco by 1980, acquiring a 100% stake in the company.

      • Luis Anastasia,

        MRW, did you know that ARAMCO was established in Saudi Arabia well before 1975?

        Yes.

      • Good, so MRW and/or Gabro, could you please provide a link to the 1975 MOU that: “to fund US companies that would establish themselves in Saudi Arabia to secure their oil supply. “

      • MRW July 3, 2017

        What a load of nonsense.

        strong>Constitution:
        Article I; Section 1:
        “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”

        Constitution:

        Article I; section 8, Excerpts:

        “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

        To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

        To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”

        “To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;”

        NB the coin money and regulate the value of coin of the realm.
        Not the President.
        Whatever twaffle you’re trying to claim regarding the Prez and his powers over legal tender, it is incorrect.

        Constitution:
        Article I; section 8, continued: Excerpts
        “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”

        “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

        “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”

        “To provide and maintain a Navy;”

        “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”

        “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

        “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

        “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

        NB The President is the “Chief Commander” of Federal troops. Not owner, master and financier for all things military.

        strong>Constitution:
        Article I; section 9, Excerpts:
        “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

        “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

        NB Legally, the President can not draw funds allocated for one account and then spend it elsewhere. It is called fraud.

        This financial responsibility is standard procedure throughout America. Every CEO, CFO, President, organizational leader is held to the same standards.
        Only someone who owns a, entire business can move their own money, from one account to another account.

        Bluntly, if Congress did not explicitly allocate funds to be spent for the Green Climate Fund; Obama raiding some their account and sending the money, twice, to the GCF is fraud.

        In fact, Congress repeatedly refused to allow funds to be allocated to international climate efforts.

        strong>Constitution:
        Article II; section 1, Excerpt:
        “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

        NB “Imagine that!”

        strong>Constitution:
        Article II; section 2, Excerpts:
        “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

        He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

        strong>Constitution:
        Article IV; section 3, Excerpt:
        “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

        strong>Constitution:
        Amendment X:
        “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

        Nowhere are the powers you allude to, given to the President in the Constitution.

        Fortunately, the USA is still a Republic, not a monarchy. Nor are we run by despots, tyrant, dictator, emperor, autocrat or unelected bureaucrats.

        What is amusing, given elite progressives hysterics since Nov 8th, 2016, elites would impeach a Republican President repeatedly for acting as Obama did.

  3. Obama talks such nonsense that it borders on word salad. Does even Obama know what Obama means?

  4. Trump promised to pull the US away from international agreements which harm the economy, and he has done it. And Obama suggests he’s anti-democratic. Hmm? But Obama’s right to say Trump’s being nationalistic as opposed to globalistic.

    So, the former president seems to be half-right, which is an improvement.

    • But Obama is using “nationalistic” as a derogatory term. Obama doesn’t seem to understand priorities. I bet Obama favors his own family over a stranger. That’s only human. Everyone does that. So it is a mystery why Obama thinks favoring one’s own country over others is the wrong thing to do. All other countries do deals that favor themselves. But we are not allowed to do it, too?

      Obama has a worldview that is seriously flawed. Like all Leftists/Socialist/Communists.

      • Obama loves his family so much he gave his son-in-law and his daughter jobs in his Admini……………..errr…..ooops……wrong president.

      • Louis, which daughter was qualified to be given a position? Malia or Sasha?

        You’re missing the point…being loyal and concerned for your own country (family) before being concerned about some other country is a NATURAL and ingrained human trait. Its also a logical response- you can’t rescue or help another person unless you are in a more secure, stronger position first.

        There are ways to help that do not put American interests at risk, or compromise the security of this country. Obama’s actions showing more concern for other countries even if it weakens this country are not logical.

      • “Obama loves his family so much he gave his son-in-law and his daughter jobs in his Admini……………..errr…..ooops……wrong president.”

        For which they get NO salary.

      • Luis: As noted, Trump’s daughter and son-in-law are not paid.

        Past precedent: Bill Clinton appointed wife Hillary to lead his administration’s health care reform strategy. In 1993, two federal judges ruled that though the law applied to Cabinet appointments (think secretary of state or yes, attorney general) or paid positions in government and that it didn’t apply to White House staff.

        So thank Bill Clinton for setting the precent. Hillary clearly stated while running that she would put Bill in to take care of the economy. Seems she intended to continue the practice, too.

      • Apparently, it is quite natural for r-selected individuals and populations (leftists) to exhibit little to no clan loyalty. Like rabbits. That seems bizarre to K people (conservatives) but it’s biological! And for them, the left, the strong clan loyalty of K’s gets misinterpreted and derided as racism – but it’s not the same thing at all.

  5. If Obama is such a fan of democracy, why did he not submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate for a vote?

    The reason is simple. He knew it would be voted down. Instead he used an Executive Decree to bypass the Senate.

    Since when is one man rule democracy? Obama only liked democracy when everyone voted the way he wanted. Otherwise he spent his days talking down to everyone.

    • Ex-POTUS Obama’s statement is almost correct.
      Leaving the Paris Accords is anti- Democratic Party.

    • “If Obama is such a fan of democracy, why did he not submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate for a vote?”

      Because Obama is a hypocrite.

      • TA
        Your post if made in Germany would TODAY get you arrested ! Last week in Germany 38 people were arrested and their houses turned inside out for criticizing the political classes.
        A new law In Germany!!! Facebook etc., can be fined up to 50,000,000 euro’s( fifty million ) if they do not remove anti German political statements within 48 hours of publication !

      • Obama has no problem ruling by Executive Order to get what he wants.

        Then he lectures his opposition to ‘reach across the aisle’ and compromise their values, when he has NEVER compromised on anything – he always drove for winner takes all.

        Once you see this you cannot unsee it. Obama uses this particular tactic of pretending moderation all the time when he wants his opposition to capitulate to his agenda, but never does the same.

        Typical Swamp hypocrite.

      • When the Democrats were writing ObamaCare, the Republicans asked to be included, Obama locked them out, and when they complained replied “I won”.
        A few years later when the wheels started coming off of ObamaCare, the Democrats whined that if only the Republicans would have worked with the Democrats, they could have made a better bill.

      • “Your post if made in Germany would TODAY get you arrested ! Last week in Germany 38 people were arrested and their houses turned inside out for criticizing the political classes.”

        I know it, Ziiex. I fear for the personal freedoms of Europeans. The Left is trying to take away your freedom of speech and has done a pretty good job of it so far.

        My hope is the people of Europe will eventually stand up to this tyranny, and throw their oppressors out. Their current leaders are a disaster happening in slow motion. It’s hard to imagine a more delusional vision of the world than that held by most of Europe’s politicians. Their delusions will be the death of western Europe, if something isn’t done soon.

        People in the United States should really stop and appreciate the freedom of action they have. This is not the case in most of the world, and this includes other western democracies who are restricting freedoms so as not to make anyone uncomfortable, as if that were the highest goal of government.

        Here’s the hard facts: Hate speech IS free speech. Hate speech is countered by more free speech, not by suppressing speech. One person’s free speech is another person’s hate speech. Who gets to decide? Answer: Noone. Instead let both sides speak, and then you decide which argument has validity.

        Americans should also be aware that there are a lot of Lefties in this nation who would very much like to shut down the free speech of those who do not agree with them politically. But that’s not going to happen here. I “will” go to jail, if it comes to the point where someone tries to shut down my freedom of speech, and I will have plenty of company.

        One thing we have to watch is will European nations extend their censorship to websites outside their jurisdiction? Will they ban WUWT in that country if politicians don’t like what is said here?

        Not that they can ban WUWT, but they can ban their own people from reading it. I would say it is their loss, but it would be a loss for all of us and we cannot allow that to happen. If you value your freedoms, you better stand up and defend them when they are challenged.

    • “Obama only liked democracy when everyone voted the way he wanted.”

      That is precisely how the EU operates and is the key reason why the UK is leaving. When a nation votes in a referendum against the EU wishes they have to re-run the referendum until the people come up with the decision the EU wants.

      The EU has removed democracy and accountability whilst creating a fig-leaf to mislead voters into thinking that they are still living in democracies. They will realise that sooner or later.

      The left wing (Democrat) don’t believe in democracy, they arrogantly assume that they know best and the ‘little people’, the voters, can’t be trusted to make the correct decision through the ballot box. .

  6. The United States is a republic not a ‘direct democracy’ in order to avoid the majority being ruled by the ‘swing vote’ of the minority. Indeed, the word democracy or democratic does not appear in The Constitution or associated documents.

    “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

    James Madison, Federalist Papers.

    Democrats (progressives) are therefore in contravention of at least the spirit of The Constitution; and they are using the ignorance of The Constitution of the current generations against them.

    • The USA is a democratic republic. Arepublic is simply a state that is not a monarchy and can have any form of government.

      • Sorry Lensman you are incorrect. The USA is a Representative Republic which is not the same thing. With the enumerated powers limiting what those representatives can do and imposing what the Europeans called subsidiarity – unless a specific power was granted to a level of representation it devolves down to the people.

      • Alas, the tenth Amendment to the US Constitution is extremely crucial to limiting the power of Government, yet it seems it is mostly ignored.
        Government power runs amok because the US Supreme court thinks everything is “Commerce”. Even refusal to participate in commerce, is commerce.

      • If you read the papers of the people who actually wrote the constitution, it is clear that the only purpose for the commerce clause was to give congress the authority to settle trade disputes between states.

  7. From the article: “He went on to note “the temporary absence of American leadership” on fighting climate change.

    “In Paris, we came together around the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change,”

    The only reason “we” came together is because Uncle Sucker was putting up the big bucks, with everyone else standing there with their hands out.

    No doubt the Paris Accord was one of the worst deals for the U.S. in our history. The only one that is worse is the Iran nuclear deal, where Obama paid big bucks to a bunch of religious fanatic terrorists who are the chief State sponsors of terrorism in the world.

    Trump is undoing the damage Obama did one deal at a time.

    It must be Devine Intervention. We were headed down the path of destruction with Obama and his successor Hillary, but we have pulled out of our death spiral with Trump at the controls. It’s to be expected that Obama would be whining about Trump undoing everything Obama did.

    Obama was the worst president evah!

    • Obama was the worst president evah!
      =============
      a large part of the problem is the politically correct mistake of thinking it is racist to criticize a black person.

      it is racists to suggest you should consider someone’s color when deciding to criticize them or not. But the US Press thinks you should pull your punches when criticizing anyone that isn’t white male. Which makes the Press both racist and sexist.

      The Press should be blind to both race and sex. But instead the Press purposely fans the flames of racism and sexism in the US to boost ratings.

      • “it is racists to suggest you should consider someone’s color when deciding to criticize them or not. But the US Press thinks you should pull your punches when criticizing anyone that isn’t white male.”

        This also applies to the Republican Congress who were scared to death to criticize Obama for fear of being labeled a racist by the MSM, which they most certainly would have been.

        This had the effect of neutralizing the Republican Congress for Obama’s entire eight year term, and who ended up giving Obama just about everything he wanted.

        The Republicans did put up a show of resisting Obama by passing a Repeal of Obamacare more than 50 times, knowing full well it would never be approved by Obama. All for show. But that’s about all the resistance they gave Obama. They approved every spending bill he wanted and put us $20 TRILLION in debt.

        Now, that it is not all for show, the Republicans are having trouble getting their ducks in a row. But it doesn’t look as bad as it did earlier. They may just get a repeal done that will take effect in about one year, which will give them the time they need to put together a really good replacement.

        Health care and tax cuts are “make or break” for the Republicans, in case they didn’t know. They need to get real serious about what they are doing and they need to demonstrate to the American people that they can do it right.

        If they don’t, there is going to be hell to pay. And none of Trump’s supporters will be blaming Trump for the failure. They will be blaming Republican Congress members. If you want to keep your job, you better do your job.

      • TA: Yes. Anyone who thought those bird and bat killing monstronsities of the green movement were history with Obama being voted out needs to check the law. Your Senators handed the wind industry a PTC until 2020. Turbines are blighting the land everywhere—well, except close to where any of the Senators live. Your representatives also voted for this—enough to ensure thousands of dead birds and useless, wasted tax money making corporations and individuals richer while producing nothing. Democracy has been dead for a long time. You do not have a say in these things—the people you vote for go for whatever gets them the best deal, not you.

      • Sheri, I commend your concern for all of the dead birds. But why are you not concerned with all of the dead squirrels massacred daily on our roads? Why do you discriminate against squirrels in favor of birds?

      • Minority or female has little to do with it for the press, those terms are only used as a tool when they want to trash someone and play the victim card. Just look at the horrible treatment of VP candidate Sarah Palin or Justice Thomas by the MSM and the Democrats, it’s OK when they do it and they want to decide when it’s racist or derogatory to women depending on political leaning.

      • Luis Anastasia, as Obama told us during his re-election campaign, we didn’t build roads. That was the government’s doing, and Obama was proud of it. So talk to that sadistic bastard about the dead squirrels.

        Last I saw, squirrels weren’t endangered, either. Many of the bird varieties suffering at the hands of windmills, on the other hand…

      • Michael Jankowski. we are lucky that squirrels are not killed by fossil fuel plants, or nuclear plants:

        ” wind farms are responsible for roughly 0.27 avian fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while nuclear power plants involve 0.6 fatalities per GWh and fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 9.4 fatalities per GWh. ”
        ..
        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2198024

      • Wondering why people care about birds and not squirrels is like wondering why they care about dogs and not rats.

      • “wind farms are responsible for roughly 0.27 avian fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while nuclear power plants involve 0.6 fatalities per GWh and fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 9.4 fatalities per GWh.”
        Of course I knew this was complete BS the second i read the title.
        After reading the entire paper, I am astounded at the compendium of lies and misinformation and supposition it contains.
        Congratulations on sacrificing every shred of your integrity and credibility on the altar of Devotion to Intermittent Power Sources.
        We have been all over the ground covered by such over the top exaggerations and outright lies as that paper you linked to.
        Assuming that every power plant in the country kills nearly one waterfowl per day by collision (300 per year each)is the sort of obvious nonsense that immediately alerts anyone paying attention that this is made up crap.
        It speculates that acid rain is caused by fossil fuels and fossil fuels alone, and that acid rain kills 2-5% of some birds every year.
        It discusses mercury briefly, and then makes speculations about bird deaths from environmental mercury and blames them all on fossil fuels. Again, no evidence a single bird has died at all from mercury or that it is present anywhere at all in lethal amounts and it all came from fossil fuels
        It uses some ridiculous stat on bird deaths from power lines in Spain and then projects that onto every power line in the country and blames them all on fossil fuels, with zero actual documented birds actually having died.
        It blames all road deaths of birds on the fossil fuel powered network that carries cars.
        It claims high voltage transmission lines are a fossil fuel and nuclear thing, and “rarely serve wind farms”!
        Bird deaths from collisions with high rise structures are somehow all blamed on fossil fuels, and speculated to be over half a billion to a billion per year.
        It then goes over the top (as if this is not all 100% over the top) to take the mid point projection of the IPCC as what will happen, and then asserts that this will lead to THE EXTINCTION of 15 to 37% OF ALL BIRDS by 2050!
        Then blames all of THEM on fossil fuels as well!

      • “Bird mortality studies[edit]

        Sovacool’s oft-cited 2009 paper Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity[9] concluded that fossil fuel energy and nuclear energy causes 10 times more bird deaths per GWh generated than does wind energy. This paper has the unusual distinction of having a direct rebuttal (Willis et al. 2010[10]) published against its conclusions in the same journal (a blemish accrued by less than 2% of peer-reviewed papers). Further studies by Sovacool in 2012[11] and 2013[12] reached conclusions similar to the 2009 paper. At that point, Sovacool was sticking to his guns.

        But in early 2013 Sovacool’s studies were reported in the press, which led to them actually being read by people. Thus they attracted strong criticism in the blogosphere[13][14][15][16], particularly regarding Sovacool’s sloppy methodology (assigning deaths from fossil-fuel plants to nuclear power, assigning deaths from copper mining to uranium, and assuming unusual accidents are common occurrances). To his credit in Sovacool’s response[17] to some of these criticisms he has admitted many errors which, if corrected, would have significantly changed his conclusions.

        Perhaps the most notable failing of these papers is that Sovacool considers lifecycle bird deaths for nuclear, while omitting them for wind. Thus, the fact that wind uses 10 times more steel than nuclear and 700 times more copper than nuclear per MWh generated[18], would have reversed Sovacool’s conclusions even if that were the only error in these papers”

        http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Benjamin_K._Sovacool#cite_note-10

      • TA: We just had a car totaled by a deer that failed to use the crosswalk, so my view on roadkill may be a bit harsh at this point.

        My objection to turbines killing birds is because the birds most often killed are raptors and owls, very large birds with low reproductive rates. It also seems if we declared the eagle our national symbol and listed it as endangered for while, whacking it out of the sky now for the enrichment of those who use wind turbines for tax breaks and nothing more, is, to put it bluntly, idiotic.

        Squirrels were never endangered. Generally speaking, they are hunted in many areas. Eagles and owls are not. Same goes for prairie dogs, magpies that don’t fly soon enough, etc. There are animals that are endangered and have special crossings. So the discrimination is based on how many animals there are and what damage is being done to their numbers.

      • TA
        “The Republicans did put up a show of resisting Obama by passing a Repeal of Obamacare more than 50 times, knowing full well it would never be approved by Obama.”

        Wow! They’ve written 50 repeals and they still can’t write one that works?
        Must be an insoluble problem – time to think like most democracies and go for a single payer system.

      • So we should abandon ObamaCare that doesn’t work, and replace it with the only thing worse, single payer?

      • Sheri wrote: “TA: Yes. Anyone who thought those bird and bat killing monstronsities of the green movement were history with Obama being voted out needs to check the law. Your Senators handed the wind industry a PTC until 2020. Turbines are blighting the land everywhere—well, except close to where any of the Senators live. Your representatives also voted for this—enough to ensure thousands of dead birds and useless, wasted tax money making corporations and individuals richer while producing nothing. Democracy has been dead for a long time. You do not have a say in these things—the people you vote for go for whatever gets them the best deal, not you.”

        You are correct, Sheri. Politicians are still pushing renewables, even GOP politicians.

        There might be a light at the end of the tunnel though. As can be seen from the article below, Oklahoma is being penalized financially because credulous politicians passed laws in an effort to promote windmills, that ends up harming Oklahoma taxpayers enormously.

        http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/frank-keating-i-signed-wind-industry-tax-breaks-and-i/article_3d48e13b-a64e-53e6-a53a-b12c932dea80.html

        Fortunately, Oklahoma’s governor signed a bill July 1, 2017, putting an end to subsidies for windmill, although the current law still obligates Oklahoma to pay subsidies for ten years for any windmills currently operating.

        One step in the right direction.

        I saw a news article today saying Oklahoma’s “Teacher of the Year” is leaving Oklahoma because of budget cuts in the education budget necessitated in part by having to pay the enormous costs of subsidzing Oklahoma windmills.

        I also saw a news article today about an injured American Eagle that was being nursed back to health on this July 4 holiday, and everyone was so happy about it, and I thought to myself, if they only knew what was going on right now underneath the windmill farms of the Earth, where no doubt they could find many similar examples of injured and dead birds.

        Go to extreme lengths to help one American eagle while at the same time allowing countless others to be slaughtered for no good reason, since windmills are not essential to anything in our lives. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. We have some real morons setting the rules.

      • “Wow! They’ve written 50 repeals and they still can’t write one that works?”

        Yeah, isn’t that one of the more ridiculous things you have heard. I don’t know about these Republicans. About the time you think they have it together, they demonstrate they don’t. A big test coming up for them and the nation.

        If the Repubicans had about eight more Senators, then it would be pretty smooth sailing. As it is, they need every vote, and there are several fairly unreliable Republican Senators right now. It just takes a couple to throw a monkey wrench into the whole works.

        I do think the Republican Senate should abolish the 60 vote requirement. We can’t count on any Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans and there are very important matters that need to get passed. We shouldn’t be waiting for the Democrats to get some sense. The Repubicans should do it on their own.

      • Everyone hopes that they will get it “right” rather than “just get it done”. The problem is no one…. no one … knows or agrees what “right” is. We’ve mixed and matched every conceivable health care variable and still no cigar. If anyone has the magic answer I haven’t heard it. The closest we’ve come is “let the free market determine it”. Maybe we need to bleed some more before we succumb to reality.

    • 100% correct….

      We have homogenized an entire race….doesn’t matter if someone has 10 PhD’s….or is a street drug dealer
      ….they are all one thing…..black

      Cracker, white trash, hillbilly, redneck, etc are all descriptive words and mean something…all different

      …we have taken away their ability to be better than…and the distinction of knowing better..and getting credit for it

      …I don’t want to live next to…or have to associate with trash….and I don’t care what color they are
      or what you want to call them

    • I suspect that the Paris accords have a ways to go before they can top the damage the UN has done.

  8. From the article: ““If we don’t stand up for tolerance and moderation and respect for others, if we begin to doubt ourselves and all that we have accomplished, then much of the progress that we have made will not continue,” he said.”

    Obama is talking to his fellow socialists, not to the rest of us.

    The rest of us don’t consider what Obama did to be accomplishments, we consider them to be roadblocks to freedom.

  9. Apparently, Obama’s sense of “democracy” involves giving the foreign countries advocating the Paris accord a vote in US policy.

  10. Last I looked, China was a communist dictatorship. Does this mean that joining the Paris treaty is anti-democratic. Obama’s logic escapes me.

  11. First off, Nationalism is the same as Patriotism and there is nothing wrong with that, unless, of course, you are a globalist who wants to disappear sovereignty and countries altogether.

    The National Socialist Party, aka, the Nazis, only added “Nationalist” to their name as they were competing against two other socialist parties and needed to be different. They appealed to the German citizens’ love for their country to further their agenda, fooling a lot of innocent people with a cobbled up name. U.S. Patriotism and Nazi ideology are worlds apart.

    This is just like Bernie Sanders calling his party the “Democratic Socialist Party.” There is no such thing, but he is appealing to people who think democracy is good and who conflate democracy with socialism to imagine a friendly socialism. There is no such thing as good or friendly socialism as, when the citizens doe not have rights that are not conferred by the ruling government, they are indistinguishable from slaves. Socialism is slavery of the masses, equal poverty for all and, of course, there has to be slave masters, just as the USSR had the Communist Party slave masters, who partied and lived the high life at the expense of the slaves.

    Second, Patriotism is a very good thing, as it says a person is willing to stand up for their country and the principles on which it is built and operates. How is that a bad thing? Well, it is bad in Obama’s eyes as it means that socialism, the globalist goals, and the UN’s one-world government goals will be rejected if the people decide to love their country and defend it from threats both from outside and within. Obama was and remains a threat from within.

    • “Socialism is slavery of the masses, equal poverty for all and, of course, there has to be slave masters, just as the USSR had the Communist Party slave masters, who partied and lived the high life at the expense of the slaves.”

      I think it is very important right now, to stress this aspect of “socialism”; It requires that some people have the power to control society . . (though I don’t think “equal poverty for all” is required, or even likely to be preferred by those with such power. More likely is a “useful favoritism”, that bolsters their hold on power, and/or coincides with scapegoating campaigns, along the lines of what the Nazi, and Soviet, and other real-world socialist regimes so infamously exhibited.)

      Thing is, once such power is in the hands of a few, they can utterly betray those who helped bring them to power, and oppressive totalitarianism be the “reward” of the people who thought they were ushering in some sort of equality paradise . .

  12. From the article: ““What we will see is more and more people arguing against democracy, we will see more and more people who are looking to restrict freedom of the press, and we’ll see more intolerance, more tribal divisions, more ethnic divisions, and religious divisions and more violence,” he continued.”

    This is Obama’s delusional vision of the world. Obama sees devision everywhere. Obama encourages division, even though he claims otherwise. Obama is the most divisive president we have ever had, and he’s not done yet being divisive, although he is done in all other aspects of the political debate.

    Obama is a failed president and Trump is exposing his failures. Obama can’t be happy about that, but those of us with any sense are very happy to have Trump leading us away from the cliff.

    Obama may have more to worry about than Trump pulling out of the Paris Accord, like Congressional investigations, and Special Counsels.

    A serious investigation would put many former Obama administration officials in serious jeopardy of going to jail. Lots of crimes are waiting to be uncovered in the Obama administration.

    • When Obama accuses other people of anything, he, like most progressives, are looking in a mirror and pointing at themselves…

  13. A true Democrat always acts single-handedly, without consulting the Congress. That is what the word “democratic” means, you deplorable voters!

    The true leadership consists of drawing and abandoning red lines.

  14. ‘aggressive nationalism’ from BO’s perspective is anything not dividing nor weakening the country. Good riddance!

  15. Democracy just means the rule of the majority based on one person, one vote. If the majority choose nationalism, then – this is what democracy looks like.

    • Yep, America had the “Democratic” ” Bill Clinton ” BUT then millions wanted his wife to ” I DID NOT HAVE Oh, America “

  16. Strange comments from a hypocrite who has been on a huge carbon burn especially since he left the White House with numerous vacations, one on a huge private yacht , others including private planes all over the world (one claim is that it took two planes like the time he and his wife took separate planes to California). Even the Dems are beginning to get embarrassed at his huge consumption of fossil fuels, knowing it dilutes their case for a significant reduction in fossil fuels, the enemy of society.
    What is in the minds of these elites rationalizing that they can use all the fossil fuels they want while demanding that the peons must suffer and ration their carbon consumption.
    Meanwhile Obama should be embarrasses for squandering the US financial resources with zero results and failing to achieve the modest Paris Accords goals according to the International Energy Agency who has warned that progress in developing renewables has been inadequate.
    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/energy-technology-is-not-advancing-fast-enough-to-meet-climate-goals.html

  17. Keep wasting time on trying to unseat Trump. It gives them something to do and highlights their anarchistic and anti democratic leanings. They are digging the hole deeper and don’t realize it. More people will make the connection between the Democrats, Progressives, the UN, and the Marxist/Socialist ongoing efforts to destroy all national sovereignty and form a One World Government that will be Communist. Climate Change is the vehicle.

    • Democrats have been advocating creating a congressional commission that would have the authority to declare the president unfit.
      If the Democrats gain control of congress and attempt to use this back door method of impeachment, the civil war in this country will turn hot, quick.

  18. “we start seeing both in developed and developing countries an increased resentment about minority groups”

    Er, could that have anything at all to do with the invasion forces which he refers to as ‘minority group’ – because let’s face it we’re only talking about the one here – is busily engaged in a war of total annihilation against all other groups?

    No wait! It has nothing to do with that. I remember now.

  19. Democratic.

    He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

  20. “We start seeing a rise in sectarian politics, we start seeing a rise in an aggressive kind of nationalism, we start seeing both in developed and developing countries an increased resentment about minority groups and the bad treatment of people who don’t look like us or practice the same faith as us.”

    “Sectarian” here, of course, must be defined by a 97% FALSE consensus that implies a false 3% deviance from the norm. Anchoring one’s claim to the implied falsehood in order to stretch a definition into an equal falsehood is the real “sectarian” move. And how aggressive is it to avoid Senate approval on major new details of economic commitments by a WHOLE nation, as opposed to one administration or one leader?

    “In Paris, we came together around the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change, …

    Yes, we “came together”, but the reason for coming together is unfounded and futile. To speak of “fighting climate change” is to force an assumption that a “fight” is what is proper. And to avoid qualifying the certain implication that “climate change” means “human caused” is to hide the details to avoid being direct, to force the case that there is ONLY this truth, which is false.

    “If we don’t stand up for tolerance and moderation and respect for others, if we begin to doubt ourselves and all that we have accomplished, then much of the progress that we have made will not continue,”

    That’s just laughable, since it contradicts Obama’s actions in all respects. He did not tolerate evidence outside his so-called “consensus”. He did not moderate his judgment with opposing views. He did not respect expert opinions that clearly pointed out problems with current climate science. He casts a negative light on the idea of doubting, when the positive thing to do would have been to doubt that climate science is settled. He confuses mere cooperation for progress, without heeding whether such cooperation leads to anything truly significant. What he calls “progress”, then, is a mystery to me.

    “What we will see is more and more people arguing against democracy, we will see more and more people who are looking to restrict freedom of the press, and we’ll see more intolerance, more tribal divisions, more ethnic divisions, and religious divisions and more violence,”

    Here he exaggerates in the extreme, using the idea of disagreement to characterize “arguing against democracy”, when he is really talking about arguing against his own policies. Not sure how he gets “restrict freedom of the press” out of any of this, when climate science seems have to tried this very maneuver. “Intolerance”, “tribal divisions”, etc. …. here he conflates lots of things in a “word salad” (as someone said) that just looks good on the plate but tastes like s***, when you try to eat it.

    • Robert, good points.
      To put it simply he was the leader of the most Sectarian group of all lacking any tolerance for different ideas on any subject. Typical blame others for having your worst attributes.
      I doubt many of his followers understand the meaning of Sectarian.

    • I think that has been true from the beginning. I learn more by reading our commentors than I do from the articles. The articles are interesting but mostly things I have thought but not had the time to crunch the numbers to back up that gut instinct. The comments though have frequently brought up facts and concepts I hadn’t thought to look at and teach me something new nearly every time (with the exceptions of the threads that get taken over by trolls – but then many times those threads are useful as well – I had no idea that degreed people could have such balderdashery in their brains! Or as Orwell wrote,”One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.” *this is often misquoted as “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”)

  21. Obama refused to submit the treaty to the Senate, which last time I looked is the people’s representation in a democracy.

      • It was originally intended for the Senate to represent the States, but an amendment changed all that. They no longer have any elegance to their state’s legislature but are directly elected by the people, just like the House.

      • In my opinion, that amendment was one of the two biggest mistakes in the constitution.
        The other one was the amendment that authorized the income tax.

  22. I guess Obama sees his U.S. citizenship as a necessary evil, now that he is visiting his boyhood home of banana and sex slave plantations in Jakarta.

    On the funny side, China Goes Coal! Big Time!

    100 new local facilities this year. 700 new local facilities planned for the next 10 years. 1600 facilities planned for 62 countries (Canada, France and Germany in that mix? … probably Africa, India, south America and southeast Asia).

    Time to buy stock in KOL ETF! Yee Haa! (Also URA ETF — global uranium stock.)

  23. Battle Hymn of the MSM (they wish!)

    Mine ears have heard the glory of Barack Obama’s word
    He is trampling out the vintage where the US wealth is stored
    He has loosed the fateful funding for the climate change accord
    His words go marching on!

  24. Trump was elected by the working class, which Democrats still confuse with a welfare class. A welfare class naturally votes for the Democratic Party, which provides the safety net (welfare), paid for by the working class.

    I traveled through California recently and noticed huge billboards along the freeway, like
    55% Tulare County Residents Have Medi-Cal
    50% Fresno County Covered by Medi-Cal
    I wondered why the billboards? Medi-Cal is a California version of Medicaid, a federal health coverage for the poor. This happens to be a warning to Trump voters in these counties – Trump proposes a cut to Medicaid. Again, Democrats confuse the working class with the poor.

    http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/For-struggling-Kern-Trump-means-hope-and-change-11043909.php

    • Last I saw, there weren’t proposed “cuts” to Medicaid. There were proposed reductions in the growth of Medicaid.

      Only in politics can smaller increases be called cuts.

      • Yes, the Medicaid budget is actually increased in the new Republican health care bill but you wouldn’t know it by the MSM who describe it as a cut.

        Republicans really seem to have a problem with communicating their ideas to the public, and allow the Democrats and the MSM to distort the facts without contradicting them. I know it is difficult to be heard over the MSM propaganda megaphone, but they have to find a way to counter the distortions put out by the MSM and the Democrats.

        The Republicans allow these supposed cuts to Medicaid to go unchallenged, along with the claim that the Republican Health care bill will take away insurance from 23 million people.

        Republicans should describe their Health Care law the way Rush Limbaugh describes it.

        Rush says the law does not take insurance away from 23 million people, what it does is free 23 million people from being required to purchase health insurance under Obamacare, whether they need it or not.

        Obamacare mandates that *everyone* sign up for health care or pay a penalty, and when this mandate is removed the Democrats and the MSM say it is taking health care away from 23 million people but in reality it is just taking the mandate away.

        Those 23 million people are free to continue to buy health care coverage or not, depending on their desire, not on what Obama and the Democrats want them to do.

        The Republican Health Care law’s purpose is to introduce more personal freedom into our healthcare choices. The first step is to stop requiring everyone to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.

    • Of those residents that have Medi-Cal and are eligible to vote, it’s a safe bet that most of them voted for Clinton.

  25. Our energy policy is one of the most critical to have it right. Obama (almost) succeeded in putting our energy policy for the next century in the hands of incompetent and unelected UN bureaucrats. That is not showing leadership and that is his biggest failure.

    • Well said, I think he just did not care about the consequences for the average Joe, he knew as an elite he could continue his carbon footprint. Let them eat cake!

    • Obama could have better fought climate change, and reduced U.S. emissions more, by pushing a half-a-loaf energy policy that:

      1. Encouraged the use of compressed and/or liquified natural gas by trucks. (There were / are companies wanting to set up fueling stations all over the country and to make or convert engines to run on gas.

      2. Encouraged households using oil for heating to switch to natural gas (in areas where gas pipes are available or could be economically laid).

      3. Protected existing nuclear plants from loss of income from subsidized or mandated competition from wind and solar.

      4. Reduced red tape and needless overhead in licensing new nuclear plants.

      5. Opened Yucca Mountain to the storage of nuclear waste, or found some other way of disposing of it (e.g., down certain boreholes).

      6. Invested in research on small-scale fusion, such as that being done by Lockheed.

      Instead he let himself be snowed by his eco-fanatic appointees to bet the house on investing in wind and solar (many bankruptcies were the result) and electric cars (whose adoptation is vastly below his predicted pick-up rate, despite subsidies), and not encouraging heating and cooking by natural gas in favor of an envisaged all-electric future. Nuclear was allowed to wither on the vine. His policies were (and are) those of extremist zealotry.

      • PS: 7. Curbed or reduced the increasing mandates to use ethanol in fuel (an expensive, mostly counter-productive policy).

        8. Put a sunset clause in his measures promoting the use of advanced biofuels, another expensive failure with many bankruptcies in the past or near-future.

      • 5. Opened Yucca Mountain to the storage of nuclear waste, or found some other way of disposing of it (e.g., down certain boreholes).

        Possibly stupid question…

        * You have nuclear fuel which, when brought together in sufficient quantity, reacts and generates a lot of heat.
        * The heat boils water, and the resulting steam spins a generator which generates electricity.

        BUT

        * You have nuclear waste which generates a lot of heat.
        * The heat boils water, unless it is constantly cooled. E.g. the Fukushima waste storage area caught fire after it lost power due to the earthquake+tsunami. With no cooling power, the containing water boiled off, and the now-dry wastes heated up enough to catch fire.

        What’s wrong with this picture? Whatever happened to “Reduce Re-use Re-cycle”? Why aren’t we using the “waste heat” from “nuclear waste” to generate power? Any expenses greater than uranium mining would be offset by less need for storage and constant cooling. The only losers would be uranium mining outfits.

  26. I am quite confident that no author had received $65M for writing a book. No single minded publishing house can make money of that investment.

    Except the shining author Obama, who did not even write an article through his academic stint.

    It smells like some quid pro for me, or put other way deferred bribery for his inaction against the wall street banksters. In this he was following the footsteps of Clinton criminal gang.

    We’ll wait and see if any of his stupid copy will sell for a penny or will be recycled immediately.

  27. Typical Obama in criticising others of ignoring democracy, In typical lawyer fashion, he changes the wording of what sort of agreement it is so to keep the decision to sign or not sign away from Congress and the Senate, because they’d both vote no as the burden of potential outcome is’t economically in the nation’s interest. Somebody really needs to explain democracy to this asshat. I wouldn’t even bother explaining hypocrisy, the concept means nothing to him or anyone the further left of the political spectrum .you go.

  28. Eric,

    “Can anyone think of a single mainstream climate skeptic who opposes Democracy?”

    I can’t even think of a single “climate skeptic” . . and i think it is extremely important right now to stop using the lingo of the elitists (which is who I believe we are actually wrestling with) if we wish to overcome/defeat them. If you mean to say “climate crisis skeptic”, I suggest you say what you mean, relentlessly, ’cause that elitist/PC lingo is intentionally designed to allow easy control of public discussion, and hence public opinion, I am thoroughly convinced.

    (By ‘elitists’ I mean those who see it as foolishness to allow actual government according to the will of the people (beyond superficial choices like which of them holds which high office and the like). If we who oppose them use the terminology and “framing” those anti-democratic elitists generate and enforce, primarily through the corporate mass media systems that we have been effectively trained to call “the press”, we may waste any opportunity that recent public skepticism about the honesty/integrity of that mass media has afforded us, I fear.)

    • (Which is to say ; )

      Eric,

      “Can anyone think of a single mainstream climate skeptic who opposes Democracy?”

      I can’t even think of a single “climate skeptic” . . and i think it is extremely important right now to stop using the lingo of the elitists (which is who I believe we are actually wrestling with) if we wish to overcome/defeat them. If you mean to say “climate crisis skeptic”, I suggest you say what you mean, relentlessly, ’cause that elitist/PC lingo is intentionally designed to allow easy control of public discussion, and hence public opinion, I am thoroughly convinced.

      (By ‘elitists’ I mean those who see it as foolishness to allow actual government according to the will of the people (beyond superficial choices like which of them holds which high office and the like). If we who oppose them use the terminology and “framing” those anti-democratic elitists generate and enforce, primarily through the corporate mass media systems that we have been effectively trained to call “the press”, we may waste any opportunity that recent public skepticism about the honesty/integrity of that mass media has afforded us, I fear.)

  29. Ex-President Obama seems to have suggested in a speech that tearing up the Paris Agreement is a symptom of “an aggressive kind of nationalism” which threatens Democracy.

    Back in 1776 “an aggressive kind of nationalism” is what we’ll be celebrating July 4th, Independence from any and all Government suppressing the Rights “endowed by their Creator” of the individual.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Obama made a personal agreement in Paris. He never bothered with going through the US’s Constitutional process.
    His administration (along with others’ before him) is what has threatened our Constitutional Republic.

    • PS The US submitting to the UN or “Paris” or “Kyoto” or “Montreal” is not democracy in any way shape or form. Nor is it democracy for any other nation to do so.

    • Absolutely right. The ex-President apparently prefers “passive nationalism”, whereby we simply sit idly by and watch our interests eroded without complaint. Better yet, there’s “masochistic nationalism”, whereby our power and influence in the world is determined by how much we are willing to be victimized by others. The Paris Accord is a prime example.

  30. What is galling to me is the MSM’s hypocrisy in how they treat former presidents. One rarely heard from George W. Bush after he left office, but Obama seems to be referred to quite frequently. It could be that Bush said little or nothing, and Obama feels the need to rip the conservative side and speaks more frequently than Bush ever did, but IMHO it is the MSM who tries as best they can to steer the dialogue. Also, historically, former presidents usually took the high road and did not criticize their successor, at least while he was in office. Obama is just being his classless self…and the MSM is following suit.

  31. Even if one believes that CO2 affects climate, the Paris agreement will have no significant effect. It is a bad deal for the USA and we just do not have the money. Financially, before we can possible support the Paris Climate Agreement, the USA must pay off its huge federal government debt and must turn huge annual trade deficits into annual trade surpluses. Maybe when the USA has payed off its debts and is again making money, we will have money to be spending on charitible purposes.

    The reality is that the paleoclimate record and modeling studies show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on clmate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. It is all a matter of science. But even if we could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise is part of the current climate and would not change. There is no possible benefit. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them

  32. With statements like this Obama may be angling for a job with some high-minded do-good organization (NGO or EU or foundation), or perhaps for a cushy do-little position as a board-of-directors member on many of them.

    • PS: Such organizations would love to have a high-profile front-man who’d give their effusions more coverage and (seeming) credibility.

  33. “… an increased resentment about minority groups and the bad treatment of people who don’t look like us or practice the same faith as us.”

    This from the guy who took nuns to court over no wanting to pay for birth control.

  34. Obama’s oft repeated mantra that “… we came together … to fight climate change…” is analogous to Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Although 400 years apart, Obama and Don Quixote were both attacking imaginary adversaries. The Paris Agreement is simply a stage prop for Obama’s illusion.

  35. Consider the source. This is the same usage of “democratic” as in Deutsche Demokratische Republik.

  36. Obama sez:

    … we start seeing both in developed and developing countries an increased resentment about minority groups and the bad treatment of people who don’t look like us or practice the same faith as us.

    That pretty much sums up the Democrat Elites’ treatment of the deplorables.

  37. I can understand Obama making ridiculous statements, inverting reality and using bizarre rhetoric. What I can’t understand is why so few are prepared to challenge him. It is really only on web sites such as this who are speaking out? Just how many think that the Emperor’s new clothes are splendid?

  38. Our Green Party candidates had this to say about suspending Democracy to save the world from an atmospheric trace gas……. “This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.”

    Obama’s side of Politics are wannabe Authoritarian Dictators…. Their language and politics reek of it.

    • Always have, always will.
      Look around the world at what happens to the opposition whenever they get sufficient power.

  39. Democrats not accepting the results of the 2016 presidential election threatens democracy.
    Democrats are against democracy.
    ‘a symptom of “an aggressive kind of nationalism” which threatens Democracy.’
    Obama acting like he cares about democracy. He is using Alinski’s advice: use the terms of the opposition.

  40. All those commenters are not wrong. The Trump presidency is proof that climate change is an emergency that the dysfunctional American democracy is failing to respond to in a responsible manner. Other democracies are doing much better – and China may yet step in to replace America’s abandoned leadership in developing the necessary strategies and technologies.

    • Do you have any evidence that climate change is an emergency that needs to be responded to?
      Or are you just demonstrating another of your irrational ideas?

  41. Read Rising Star and Dreams From My Father.

    That man is a messed up poseur. He rode the affirmative action express to the top all the while decrying racism and claiming victimhood. His black cultural identity was assumed. He married black for politics. His life has been an act. He is an expert in saying nothing. People who admire him are simply ignorant of what he is. His ambition for higher office was a complete obsession with him. Imagine. He was depressed after 9/11 because he thought his future in politics was ruined (Obama/Osama). Now that he achieved the supreme goal of his life, the highest level of political success possible, he has nowhere else to go. Right now he is surrounded by people telling him how great he is. If he can make money for them, they’ll keep telling him that.
    I notice that he hasn’t been back to visit his large family in Kenya for a while.
    Well, let’s cut him some slack. He is a lawyer and a politician, so that explains a lot.

  42. “What we will see is more and more people arguing against democracy, we will see more and more people who are looking to restrict freedom of the press, and we’ll see more intolerance, more tribal divisions, more ethnic divisions, and religious divisions and more violence,”

    As long as you keep on dividing people into us and others, that’s your legacy Barack.

  43. One could not expect anything else from a failed President who never had the best interests of the country and its citizens at heart. The world is a far worse place for his Presidency, and he appears a warped individual and should simply butt out of things. He is yesterday’s man, and the sooner he is forgotten the better.

    Prior to signing up to the Paris Accord, there was never a democratic vote of the citizens of the USA, UK, Europe etc to see whether they wished top be bound by the terms and provisions of the Accord.

    By contrast, one of the main promises in the November 2016 election campaign was withdrawing from the Paris accord, and the USA voted for this.

    Obama’s action of signing an executive order is the very opposite of a democratic process; no mandate from Congress/The Senate, still less from the people. By contrast,Trump’s action is a shinning example of democracy in action; the mandate from the people was to withdraw from the Paris Accord.

  44. According to liberals, it’s only democracy when the peon’s vote as we tell them to.

    • Anthony, this is clearly a Bot, why is not blocked ? It may be dangerous to reply to it…

  45. If I was crude, I would wish Obama to dissappear up his fundemental orifice. But I will not say that.

  46. And this from a guy who illegally bypassed Congress to get all of his anti American
    AGW rubbish passed through a toy EPA.

Comments are closed.