Guest essay by Dale Leuck
A so-far not-widely-noticed lawsuit was filed in the liberal United States District Court, Eugene Oregon Division, in September 2015, in response to the failure of the December 2009 Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change to reach any meaningful agreement, and in anticipation that the December 2015 Paris Climate Conference would also not result in a legally-binding agreement. Should the plaintiffs prevail at trial, the consequences for the U.S. economy would be severe.
Should the plaintiffs prevail, United States government offices, agencies, and departments shall be ordered (Par 12) “…to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system.”
The lawsuit, organized and guided by Our Children’s Trust, was filed by a group called Earth Guardians, and a group of 21 children represented by their guardians, with defendants listed as the Office of the President, and various Offices, Departments and Agencies of Government. The lead Counsel is Julia Olson, the Executive Director of Our Children’s Trust.
The essence of the suit is that many official U.S. Government documents accept that climate change will cause various kinds of harm to the environment, that will affect today’s children, as well as future generations, through such things as drought, rising sea levels, migration, and political instability. As such, the defendants are alleged to have “…violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” As Mark Buchanan points out:
“They have a plausible case: In earlier proceedings, the U.S. District Court in Oregon ruled that the due process clause of the Constitution guarantees citizens an “unenumerated fundamental right” to “a climate system capable of sustaining human life.”
What Buchanan is referring to is a 54-page November 10, 2016 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Judge Aiken cites the public trust doctrine (36-51); “Obergefell v. Hodges, that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage, and Roe v. Wade (pp 30-31), as supporting fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
She found that
“…the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society (pp.32)…just as marriage is the foundation of the family (pp.32).” Aiken agreed that “…inactions of the government…have ‘so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty”.
Importantly, the November decision states that the “…lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it. For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.” The Court is concerned about “…whether defendants are responsible…and whether this Court can direct defendants to change their policy without running afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.”
A Petition For Writ of Mandamus, to vacate the November 10 Order and dismiss the case was filed June 9, 2017 in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court was asked to consider the undue burden placed on all government offices, departments, and agencies to provide detailed evidence dating back roughly fifty years, in the discovery process. The three-judge Appeals panel handed down its ruling March 7,2018, denying the Petition for Mandamus because the District Court had not yet issued any discovery orders, nor had the plaintiffs yet filed any motions compelling discovery. The Appeals Court noted that “…issues can be resolved by the district court, in a future appeal, or, if extraordinary circumstances later…by mandamus relief.”
The lawsuit shall continue winding its way through the Ninth Circuit Court system, with a heavy burden of proof now placed upon the defendants, seeming the reverse of usual court proceedings, in which plaintiffs bear the burden of proof.
The lawsuit is a collaborative effort between Dr. James Hanson, of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and The Children’s Trust, and based on a 6-page non-technical paper whose lead author is Dr. Hanson. Hanson is named in the lawsuit as the guardian of both his plaintiff granddaughter, and plaintiffs “referred to as Future Generations, (who) retain the legal right to inherit well-stewarded public trust resources and protection of their future lives, liberties, and property.” Hanson was Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), from 1981 through 2013. As one of the two sources of surface-based temperature data, GISS periodically adjusts its data to favor the global warming, an example of which in 2016 is discussed at the 4:30 mark in this Tony Heller video. Hanson’s protégé, Gavin Schmidt, employed at GISS since 1996, has headed GISS since June 2014. Schmidt is one of the eight contributors to the blog, Real Climate, along with disgraced inventor of the “hockey stick,” Michael Mann (here, here, and here). Booker, pp. 23-25, describes how Hanson, Schmidt, and Mann contribute to a politicized “climate science.”
The lawsuit has, among its plaintiffs, an articulate spokesperson, Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the now 17-year-old climate activist and Youth Director of Earth Guardians. His vita states that the precocious Xiuhtezcatl began his career at the age of six, speaking at “…the Rio+20 United Nations Summit in Rio…to addressing the General Assembly at the United Nations in New York city. He is the 2015 recipient of the Peace First Prize, …(the) 2016 Captain Planet Award and the 2016 children’s Climate Prize, from Sweden.” Among his claimed accomplishments were getting “pesticides out of parks, coal ash contained, and moratoriums on fracking.” Xiuhtezcatl has no scientific expertise but brings “music to the masses,” but represents a sympathetic minority (Aztec) youth as an expert on things he knows nothing about.
The lawsuit states (pp.7-8) that the then-15-year old, Xiuhtezcatl, “…engages in sacred indigenous spiritual and cultural practices to honor and protect the Earth…and has suffered harm to his spiritual and cultural practices from Defendant’s actions,” as well as his “…personal safety, property, and recreational interests through the resulting increased frequency and intensity of wildfires, drought, declining snowpack, pine-beetle infested forests, and extreme flooding.” The reference to “spiritual and cultural practices” may arguably allude to an infringement upon freedom of religion.
Page 15 of the lawsuit describes the harm Defendant’s actions have caused 10-year old plaintiff Avery M, who herself has
“…worked to increase awareness in her community about climate change…and advocated for carbon dioxide reductions before her representatives at…municipal and state levels.” The harm done to Avery is related to her enjoying backpacking and “swimming in natural bodies of water.” Not only was Avery unable “…to participate in these recreational activities as frequently as past years due to warmer temperatures, drought, low water levels, forest fires, and algal blooms” but the “…increase of hungry bears in the (Yellowstone) area due to the decline in white bark pine trees forced postponement of a backpacking trip.
Then there is 13-year old plaintiff, Isaac V, who in the lawsuit expressed that summer 2015 was “…the hottest summer Isaac remembers, with temperatures at 100 degrees.” And 14-year old Miko V, an immigrant from the Marshall Islands, who
“…fears she will never be able to travel back…as she intends…because the islands will likely be underwater in the future.”
Plaintiff Sophie K., a 16 resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania “…became passionate about climate science” from stories told by her guardian (representing her in the lawsuit) and grandfather, Dr. James Hansen.
“Extreme weather events…caused Sophie to miss school on many occasions; hailstorms have damaged her house; floodwaters often inundate roads by her house…” and she is “deeply concerned about the future.”
Crusades by idealist, uninformed, and undereducated children, motivated and supported by malevolent adults generally do not end well. The Children’s Crusade of 1212, to expel Muslims from the holy land, for example, was inspired by the teachings of adult preachers. Much like the global warming hysteria, the preaching appealed to idealistic youth, who were torn from and sometimes encourage by their families, and thrust into a closed environment of groupthink. Some thirty thousand, most not yet teenagers, led by a youth known as “Stephen,” massed at Vendome, and trekked towards the port of Marseilles, many dying on the way. When the sea refused to part, as Stephen claimed Christ Himself had promised, in a vision, many turned against him. As if a miracle, two merchants offered seven ships to carry them to the Holy Land. Eighteen years later, a returning French priest, who had accompanied the children, revealed that the two merchants had arranged to sell the children and accompanying adults into slavery. The priest had survived and prospered because of his education, eventually set free.
The youths party to the lawsuit shall most certainly find life disappointing, even if the lawsuit succeeds. But, its success will create an obvious onerous burden on all generations.
“Importantly, the November decision states that the “…lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it. For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.” You would think this court would await the outcome of the #ExxonKnew court case being held in San Francisco before making such a broad statement.
This court case is truly bizarre. Maybe it’s good that this winds it way through the liberal United States District Court, Eugene Oregon Division Court so that everybody gets to see how crazy this has all become. It has no chance of being enacted into law, but it shows how stupid everything has become. Especially on the Left Coast. What a waste of court resources. It’s no wonder Trump got elected with all this nonsense, and hopefully he starts weighing in on this stupidity and deal it a final political death blow, at least in the USA.
In Canada, the Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna says the government will make it mandatory to consider indigenous traditional knowledge alongside science and other evidence when making decisions going forward on everything, especially related to resource extraction and climate change. To think now that indigenous oral tradition could now be equal to science, given that oral tradition originates in stone age fairy tales. That may even be more bizarre since a court doesn’t even get to decide. Just Chatty Cathy Bimbo Climate Barbie and the Cabinet Circus of Prime Minister Justin Truedope will now make decisions based upon their ‘science’ and indigenous traditional knowledge. And we all know what they are smoking.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-deputy-minister-gets-pushback-after-questioning-place-of-indigenous-traditional-knowledge
What about sharia law? Shouldn’t that be considered, too? Any ancient mythological tradition must be respected, as long as it’s not Christianity or Judaism.
I wish I could reply Chimp, but doing so now for me would be a criminal offence in Kanada, even if if I politely gave my opinion on such matters as evil sharia law or islam. Even if they are a bunch of johnny come lately’s to the judaeo/christianity myth. I guess Minister ‘Chatty’ Catherine Climate Barbie could sue me for calling her a Bimbo, but that is abundantly evident for all to see.
A sad state of affairs when there is no freedom of speech, however objectionable. Or not.
Why is it OK for Muslims to oppress women and homosexuals, but not for normal people?
-And, in South Africa, science is just a ‘colonial’ way of thinking…
Just cut-off their power and their neighbors. Then one can also forbid them and their parents from buying gas. Then we install those giant windmills in their backyard and cover their house in solar panels and make them buy Teslas. Then we ban meat in their households AND THEN,
… We have met all their demands.
The best way to torture so-called progressives–give them what they want, and lock the door behind them.
Speaking as a licensed lawyer, this lawsuit has a snowballs chance in H even if it makes it through the weird Oregon trial court. Even thismpreliminary standing ruling is deeply flawed. Children do not have standing for speculative future damages that they they themselves cannot comprehend. Byncomprehend, I do not mean relyingnon IPCC ‘hearsay’. Immean actually understanding the arguments such as made in recent Monckton third post ‘Game Over’. Their guardians might, but these adult activist plaintiffs ‘guardians’ are not guardians in any meaningful legal sense and thatnis easy to show.. Neither Roe v Wade (‘penumbra of the constitution’ right to privacy going back to a (if I recall correctly) 1890 Louis Brandeis Law Review aeticle, and implicit in manynother SCOTUS decisions before Row v Wade ) nor Obergefell (equal rights) made this kind of ridiculous reach. Like the SF/Oakland v. Big Oil on ‘Exxon knew’ grounds, a sign of warmunist desperation. Cannot win public opinion, cannot get legislation, cannot get international agreements, so lets get our political way through the US courts. That is not how courts (in the end) work.
More’s the pity that you’re not a federal judge.
I’m sure that if Aiken’s decision is appealed, she’ll yet again be overturned (as she was re the Patriot Act), by the USSC if not by the Communist 9th Circuit.
Himp, most certainly with Gorsuch on the Court. But I could see this going 9 zip. And my 2l connlaw professor was non other than a much younger Larry Tribe.
Nine-zip would help restore, or create, faith in US jurisprudence, but IMO you’re pretty optimistic with respect to Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.
You’d know better than I how Tribe might view the right of kids to an unchanging climate.
The Four Horsepersons of the Progressive Apocalypse!
ristvan, I have o percent confidence in the west coast federal judiciary to actin a sane rational manner.
Would repeal of the endangerment finding, knock the stuffing out of these lawsuits.
I think I read where this case was going to be heard in district court in San Francisco. Maybe a different suit.
ristvan
March 31, 2018 at 3:44 pm
—————-
Children do not have standing for speculative future damages that they they themselves cannot comprehend.
————-
Not only that but:
Children, we like it or not, do not have any standing at all in matters of law, legislation or constitution.
As it happens, children do no have any legal or constitutional rights, what so ever.
Legally and constitutionally a right to a given social or civic condition means being subjected to responsibility in the given matter and right, which children do not and can not have, as children can not be hold legally responsible, as that happens to be the condition of a child protection from the hazards of the “adult responsibility” in matter of law and legislation, or even constitution..
Next you will hear, will be the insane suing the government, the president, the Congress and any other agency and authority in climate rights, for their right on climate, by invoking the constitution………….
oh wait, these insane are already attempting it by using, abusing and mentally-emotionally molesting the children…in and by the constitution angle.
My questing in this matter happens to be simple:
What are actually the children’s protection agencies actually doing??? Why are these agencies not engaging as suppose to, but have ignored this problem!
a simple test:
Four modern English speaking nations, Australia, UK, Canada and USA.
Please do try to find and point out one single legal-constitutional right that children have, in any of this countries. (bear in mind the connection to legal responsibility, which subjects one to prosecution under the legislation in any given matter, regardless of age at that point.)
In the case of climate as per this aspect here, even adults at large do not have such right, as that right restricted to federal government,Senate and Congress, or any other agencies or institution, or individuals in position of authority or clearance delegated by the Law makers or the Federal Government.
So when considering that once upon a time the Indiana Joke might have had a right to climate as per merit of his position in the past, it does not anymore….that must really be really really disturbing as this case in point shows…
Too dangerous and risky for the children in the care of such fake guardians, who actually not in any care about the children’s position and not much responsible about the children’s interest and well being!
This actually is more like an attempt to cause anarchy, by going far and beyond the attempt of causing a legal and constitutional crisis, by also attempting a wide social civic crisis, in the most arrogant way possibly imagined…..oh well, Indiana Joke must try by all means possible, regardless of any children and their legal and social protection needs regarded or respected what so ever……Total Anarchy.
cheers
Are you saying children have no rights and cannot sue?
That makes little sense.
s-t
April 2, 2018 at 7:45 pm
Are you saying children have no rights and cannot sue?
That makes little sense.
————
Thanks for your reply, appreciated, as no any much there.
A bit too late in the day, but I finding an obligation to respond,as it happens to be the only reply there.
Yes, as strange that it may seem, and maybe even a little disturbing, from my point of understanding, yes the children do not have any legal or constitutional rights what so ever.
Let me list it, children do not have any legal or constitutional right to:
Free speech.
Right to bear arms.
Right to private property.
Right to participate in any legal election, or the right to be legally elected.
Right to alcohols.
Right to sex.
Right to stay late.
Right to protest.
Right to avoid education.
Right to financial activity.
Right to work.
Right to travel.
Right to legally sue.
No right what so ever to legally sue for any of the above rights they have not,especially in the general context of the whole children’s benefit.
Maybe if going to extreme in the disturbing position as per religion, children may not have even the legal or constitution right to life, as the above may also suggest.
But all this said, still society does have a mending here ,,,, the civic way of life at large applies, as per recognition of this condition, where the need for the children and their way of life and their life to be heavily protected, by the laws and the legislation of the land is indisputable, especially in the modern western nations..
For any lack of these rights, children get a tremendous legal protection.
Amend any of this rights and the protection immediately defaulted.
If you think carefully in this given angle, a wining of these children in these court case, happens to be impossible in the general context term, as per all children.
And a supposed wining in special specific terms, concerning and relying to only these “plaintiff” children, means a contradiction, where these children will be considered adults as per matter of their claim and that will contradict many of the other protection these children have as per lack of other rights these children do not and can not have, like the right to free speech, right to work (like in pornography industry), right to finances, right to private property or right to sex (like the right of abortion or right of clinical castration, as per climate right they may impose)…..as the actual right to climate happens to be very wide and not strictly specified under any legislation.
Any way, still if you read my above comment still the test stand…..please do find and name one legal-constitutional right at all that children may have!
Please bear in mind for any legal or constitutional right that you may think that children do have, or may have, then you have to consider that the mighty “children protection clause” does not apply.
For any legal and constitutional rights that children do not have, the little lucky “brats” do enjoy a tremendous legal protection, especially in modern developed nation, top of the suppose to be ones,,, the USA.
cheers
I want to file a lawsuit against the Children’s Crusade — for forcing lawyers and judges to consider cases based of falsehoods that set legal precedents to enforce policies based on falsehoods that will cost future children unnecessarily more money to exist in civilization.
Clearly there is harm to future children here — in perpetuating stupidity translated into public policy.
Oregon is a progressive cesspool where dumb, dishonest thugs mangle everything they touch while insisting they know best.
Pick any issue or policy arena. It’s the same story.
Other than that it’s a fine State. 🙂
It could be argued that nobody can live in any climate system on Earth, past or present, without some modification of their living conditions.
All environments will kill humans without food, water, shelter, etc and no environment delivers all of the necessities of life without our ‘interference’ in one form or another.
‘Rights’ are a human invention – Nature doesn’t give a hoot whether we are here or not and generally tries to remove us given the energy systems She/Zie/Tey/He/(any other gender neutral pronoun) throws at us on a regular basis.
I’m envisioning a Stephen King movie: “Children of the Climate Porn”.
The left uses children like despots use child soldiers or like terrorists use children as suicide bombers. It is quite sickening, really. And the REAL sick thing about it is that most of the children alive today would never have been born or would have long since starved to death if it weren’t for the advances driven by the use of fossil fuels.
15-year old, Xiuhtezcatl, “…engages in sacred indigenous spiritual and cultural practices to honor and protect the Earth…and has suffered harm to his spiritual and cultural practices from Defendant’s actions,”
Do the cultural practices of Xiuhtezcatl include human sacrifice and the removal of the heart of the sacrifical victim?
And the rest of the victim’s flesh to be devoured?
Late to the game, but I meant to ask that, as well.
I’ll never understand why an adult would consider the ignorance of a child as anything but sweet, but not to be taken seriously.
A ridiculous lawsuit. Those folks probably really think they are clever. But it’s not going to work.
The people who really need to be sued are those who perpetrated this CAGW Fraud on the world in the first place. They have cost the world uncounted amounts of money and are scaring the children to death with their BIG LIE.
Btw, it is ridiculous to have a post go into moderation because of the use of the word “Fraud”. What’s the big deal about “Fraud”? It a pain in the you know what to have to avoid this word when it is so necessary on a website like this that discusses the Fraud of CAGW.
About time we had some Mann-dam-us relief.
as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100
Do we HAVE to go to war with China and India?
Silly me, when I first read the title of the thread I thought The Children’s Crusade (Lawsuit) Against Climate Change was to sue the various governments that are wasting billions of dollars, trying to control the climate, that could be used to solve real and present problems being experienced by children in poverty-stricken parts of the world.
Oregon gets ZERO oil, gas and natural gas from today forward. It’s for the children.
Using children.
Straight from Hilter’s playbook.
This is a dangerous lawsuit, should the plaintiffs prevail:
“Should the plaintiffs prevail, United States government offices, agencies, and departments shall be ordered (Par 12) “…to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system.”
I know some “children” who would oppose this
case on the grounds they don’t want to spend
their life freezing in the dark.
The ” children” know this means
no more TV or rides to soccer?
Should the plaintiffs prevail, the absolute first action must be to ban them from ever using fossil fuels or any products made from them. The same ban must apply to their guardians, James Hansen, Al Gore etc. Give the idiots what they’re demanding, because if they really mean what their saying, they wouldn’t be using them anyway, and they won’t have any grounds for complaint.
Make them bring their case using no fossil fuels of any kind in a building made in the same way with no modern facilities (or as my mum puts it “with all mod cons”), travelling on foot or horseback and probably most difficult of all (for them) disconnect them from social media.
I think that would help them see what they are heading for if their case wins.
James Bull
This is the April Fool, right…..?
Look around you don’t you see how America (the West) is falling apart. Why do you think the blog WUWT exists?. Most of the people writing here are ex believers until they opened their eyes to see. That’s a very important and frightening first step.
“Extreme weather events…caused Sophie to miss school on many occasions; hailstorms have damaged her house; floodwaters often inundate roads by her house…” and she is “deeply concerned about the future.” Ahem, absolutely nothing about this changes because of that lawsuit. But it is a request to not only legislate from the bench, but also put the courts above the legislative, and executive branches of government and above the people. In the name of 21 people who pretend to speak for children. Over an unsubstantiated fear and out of a desire for control..
They don’t have a plausible case, but they have a plausible chance of winning.
One would hope (and donate) to any group that seeks to intervene to represent those children that will be negatively effected by the Plaintiffs seeking to impair their unenumerated right conferred by the Constitution and court decisions to restrict their right to affordable and least costly energy because energy is the basis for all society, including life itself, any infringement on the right to affordable energy will have extreme and dire consequences. In fact, that affordable energy is a supreme right which takes precedence over all other rights conferred in the Constitution since it directly effects a citizens companion right to life. (and etc.)
Thus, the intervenor should seek to be plaintiff against the Defendants, should they prevail in the main case, for them to not construct policies infringe on their right to affordable energy and against the Plaintiffs, should they prevail in the main case, from constructing any remedy that infringes upon the right to affordable energy such that any remedy crafted must use actual economic measurements and those measurements must be used shown to be greater than the proposed remedy.
For example, if the cost per kwh increases by even a minute amount, the remedy would be rejected since it fails to demonstrably show any net benefit.
The point being to intervene to force the court to deal with conflicting “rights”. Plus it will make the case drag on for years, perhaps decades, since after 18 years, the “guardian” will have no bodies upon which to claim and the case could be dismissed as moot.
The point is to not allow the Left and the Greens to do in the Ninth Circuit what they can not do in science or politics and allow it be done by oligarchs of their choosing.
Above is a possible solution. The best solution is getting the six conservative States that have not voted for an Article V Convention to so vote. Then, an Amendment(s) can be proposed, offered to the States to ratify, and correct the tyranny. A harder solution would for Congress to break up the Ninth Circuit into five Circuits and make sure each Circuit has a majority of non-oligarchs appointed.
Another Amendment would add a new court, a States Court of All State Courts (SCASC), which would have the Chief Justice of each State as a member and SCASC would run and control the Federal Judiciary, including SCOTUS. SCASC would have the power to remove judges and make such rules as SCASC deems appropriate.
Of course, Congress, within it’s enumerated powers, can simply remove the Federal Courts from having jurisdiction over any things related to “climate change” as well as pass a State-preempting “Freedom of Affordable Energy Act” which would restore the reality of the balance of power back to the Congress (the above act) and the Executive (signing the Act into law) and thus control the Federal Court oligarchs.
Sadly, none of these will likely occur. Future generations will likely curse us for, having the tools to defeat tyranny, we failed to act.
Dear kids, Mother Nature is a miserable B****, and you must do everything you can to survive using your intelligence and wonderful inventions such as electricity and fossil fuels.
Sounds like the kids are the ultimate spoiled brats. “I can’t”, “I won’t be able to”, etc. We have made many trips to the Rockies and have never seem the plethora of wondrous animals promised to us. It must be someone’s fault, I’ll be okay with a settlement of $100 million and a lifetime supply of bacon cheeseburgers (I shouldn’t have to spend my money on them though).
It’s not the consequences to the economy to fear, but the survivability of life without our inventions. The science that should be taught in school is the quality and length of life before and after the industrial revolution.
So just how much money were the plaintiffs expecting to get out of this frivolous lawsuit?
Aside from attorneys’ fees, there must be some cash in the cash drawer aspect of it, in addition to the publicity they’re groveling around to get.
“…engages in sacred indigenous spiritual and cultural practices to honor and protect the Earth…” This alleged “Aztec” kid is following all those ancient rituals, is he? Is he decapitating his sacrifices and following all the other gruesome practices that they followed, including eating the flesh of their victims?
Am I, or any other reasoning person, expected to take this stuff seriously?
Aside from the waste of time it represents, just exactly HOW does Hansen expect to have any control whatsoever on a planetary body that is several trillion times his puny size?
The whole thing is BS. We all know it. But we have to witness The Follies and let them have their day, because if we don’t, it will happen again and be worse the next time around.
Meanwhile, i am completely in favor of denying all public services such a power and heating and water utilities, never mind food markets and transportation, to these benighted souls so that they will have a chance to prove their virtue to us, instead of just mouthing the words.
Thank you.