by Josh Siegel
Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon said Friday he intends to introduce a resolution declaring climate change a national emergency.
Blumenauer, who has endorsed the progressive Green New Deal resolution and is active on environmental and renewable energy issues, circulated a letter to colleagues Friday seeking support for a resolution that would declare the “sense of Congress” that climate change is a national emergency.
Blumenauer’s resolution would swipe President Trump for declaring a national emergency Friday to build a border wall and address what the congressman called a “manufactured crisis.”
“What our country should be doing right now is focusing on addressing a real national emergency and one of the most pressing issues of our time: the climate crisis,” Blumenauer said in his letter. “If Donald Trump wants to start declaring national emergencies for fake crises, Congress should address the real ones, starting with climate change.”
Republicans who oppose Trump’s emergency declaration for the wall have expressed concern that Democrats could take that precedent and use the same executive authority to act alone on their priorities, such as climate change and gun control.
Full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s a national education emergency maybe. More critical thinking courses needed.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/03/hidden-hand/
Thanks Chaamjamal.
This link is a well worth read and an excellent analysis of the workings of the CO2 Dragon and shines a light on the dark forces inherent in current Climate Science.
Thank you sir
Please do not interfere with the opponent while he is busily committing suicide.
(attributed to Napoleon, or something). 😉
Suicide would solve all our problems. If only Retardlicans would try it.
Trouble with Earl is that he is in the most safe district possible. There is ZERO chance he will ever lose an election regardless of how lunatic his proposals.
+10^googol
In my 21 years of reading climate science,
as a hobby, I have yet to identify anyone
actually hurt by the very mild global warming
from 1975 to 2003.
In fact, if you consider
the ‘greening’ of our planet,
and faster C3 plant growth,
adding CO2 to the atmosphere
is net beneficial.
The only problem, mainly in Asia,
is adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels
without modern pollution controls.
A Chinese family burning soft coal
to heat their home, for example,
is not doing the world any favors,
especially their own neighborhood.
My view is the climate of our planet
has been improving for the past
20,000 years, staring with Chicago
and Detroit under thick ice glaciers.
The average temperature has not changed
since 20003, per weather satellite data,
considering the measurement margins
of error … so no one could benefit
from mild global warming.
That’s disappointing for those of us
living in the Detroit suburbs,
hoping for much warmer winters
for the past 15 years, and not
getting them !
It was 10 degrees F. this morning
— we consider THAT
a national emergency !
My climate science blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Well, what happens if in the end of the judicial process this would entail, that the SCOUTUS declare there is no climate emergency? Would that put a permanent end to the climate change drumming? If so, then let’s get this climate change business into court ASAP and allow the ‘climate national emergency’ appeals to fully investigate every matter of this entire subject and declare what is in on the rails, and what has gone off the rails with this ‘science’ under oath.
The House Democrats specifically formed their Select Committee on Climate Change to address Congressman Earl Blumenauer’s concerns. His resolution needs to be shuffled-off to committee and then voted out of committee or simply forgotten in all the other political posturing. Either way, it has zero chance of success in the Senate. And even with the climate hustlers’ wildest fantasies if it somehow got passed by the Senate, it has zero chance with a certain Presidential veto.
As for the President’s authority to declare a national emergency (NE) along the Southern Land Border, he has clear constitutional and legislative authority to do so. The Constitution puts him in charge of defending the nation from threats via his role as Commander in Chief. The States have no say in this regard. Even if the Blue states AG’s forum shop for a sympathetic Federal judge to seek their injunction against the NE declaration, the judge risks reputational harm in getting a strong rebuke from a certain Supreme Court slap down, because any legal opinion he/she could write would have to disregard clear Presidential authority in this area.
Nanny Pelosi’s trying to make the case the guns could be seized in a National Emergency declaration is total BS as the 2nd Amendment cannot be overridden with a simple executive order. As far as executive authority on a climate change NE declaration goes, Obama in effect has already tried this with his executive action-only on the Clean Power Plan (CPP). His CPP, had it not been withdrawn by Trump, was going to get slapped down by the rational SCOTUS majority (a majority which is now firmed up with Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) as unconstitutional action by the executive against The States’ rights.
Specifically, the National Emergencies Act of 1976, signed by President Ford and used by every president since. Over 50 National emergencies have been declared, over 20 are still in force.
“Over 50 National emergencies have been declared, over 20 are still in force.”
Yes, and how many of those declarations of a national emergency were challenged by the Democrats or the Republicans?
I don’t recall ANY of them being challenged. I believe Trump’s declaration is the first.
Trump is perfectly within his legal rights. His challengers are the ones who are trying to undermine the U.S. Constitution and the security of the United States.
The Real National Emergency is the National Debt
https://youtu.be/lhtwkYxIQrM
Peter Schiff
Look at all those unfunded liabilities.
As always, the state destroys rather than creates. Would you trust your neighbor with your finances? Exactly. Well that’s how it is with government. Believing is legitimate is the first mistake
I believe there were 58 emergencies since 1976,
with 31 still in force before Trump added #32 recently.
Here is my list of the 31:
http://electioncircus.blogspot.com/2019/02/trump-adds-32-to-31-national.html
Be very glad Hillary didn’t win, as instead of the rational majority being firmed up with Trump’s appointees, we’d now have an irrational leftist majority with Hillary’s.
We would be screwed if Hillary had been elected.
We will be equally screwed if any other radical socialists wins the presidency. The Deep State is still in place, all they need is s new leader to start things going back in the socialist direction, never to return to real democracy, as Barack and Hillary were planning on doing. They were wanting to lock in the future for their ideology
It’s gone, Jim!
Americans have seen the Deep State red in tooth and claw. Once you’ve see it, it can’t be un-seen.
If someone like AoC becomes President, they’re going to find a lot of people saying ‘no way’ when the President makes her pronouncements about the destruction of America.
“As for the President’s authority to declare a national emergency (NE) along the Southern Land Border, he has clear constitutional and legislative authority to do so. The Constitution puts him in charge of defending the nation from threats via his role as Commander in Chief.”
Not only does the U.S. Constitution give the president this authority, the U.S. Congress has also specifically given the president the authority to declare a national emergency in the legislation passed in 1976.
Now, this 1976 legislation was actually written as a liberal effort to restrict presidential power after the Vietnam war, and it has never been challenged in court and is probably unconstitutional in its restrictions on the president, but nonetheless, this legislation does give the president the authority to declare a national emergency and take the steps the president considers necessary to fix the situation.
The president also has other laws specifically giving authority to the prsident to interdict drug trafficking and lots of other things.
The president will prevail in the Supreme Court.
Indeed. And the act give Congress a path towards revoking the emergency. While the original provision for “Congressional termination” was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha (1983), it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution – which requires the president’s signature (which means he can veto) – which like all veto’s can be overridden by a 2/3rds majority in both houses. Good luck with that Dems.
These Republicans and many democrats like Pelosi have very poor short term memory.
Obama declared 13 “State of Emergency” orders, 11 of which are still in force and operative.
“These Republicans and many democrats like Pelosi have very poor short term memory.”
No doubt. And if they think the dems weren’t already thinking about it, they’re pretty out of touch.
ATheoK,
Their memories are shorter than you think,
President Obama set the precedent when he sent two $500 Million payments to the UN’s Green Climate Fund.
Congress never appropriated this money President Obama simply carved it out of the State Department’s budget.
These RINOs need to stop making up stories and get behind the President.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/314624-obama-injects-another-500m-into-global-climate-fund
“Even if the Blue states AG’s forum shop for a sympathetic Federal judge”
9th Circuit.
And the first thing the US AG should do when ever one of these liberal attempts to block Trump with the 9th circuit comes up is to request a change of venue to the DC district court on the grounds that that is the appropriate venue (DC is where the Federal Government is based and where all the Federal Government people whose testimony would be required are located).
A change to DC won’t guarantee the administration will get a fair hearing (there are plenty of liberal judges to be found in all the districts) it does increase the odds over going to the far-left loony liberal 9th.
Hasn’t Mark Steyn called the DC District Court a “cesspool”. Isn’t that the Court in which Mann v Steyn and Steyn v Mann have been locked up for years?
Can the Executive Branch, as defendants in the case(s), request immediate review of the cases by the Supreme Court?
All the circuit courts are cesspools. The trick in lawsuits is to pick the cesspool most favorable to the outcome you want.
There are four or five Republican-selected
judges awaiting confirmation for the 9th circuit.
Republicans in the Senate should end the
30 hours of debate Democrats demand for each
appointee, change the rules to reduce debate
to 3 hours, and get these judges approved.
I wouldn’t put anything of lasting importance in front of the Supreme Court.
We saw what they did to the institution of marriage that has transcended cultures, ages, races and creeds since the dawn of human history. They chose to claim ownership of that which was never theirs to claim and promptly destroyed it due to arrogant political vanity and a complete lack of perspective.
murriage is combination of church and state
crush the cat is a also combination of state and church.
That was a SCOTUS of a very different complexion from the current Court.
They must do something to protect their phony baloney jobs. Can I get an harrump?
Rump Trumps harrump!
I didn’t get a harrumph out of that guy.
Because the atmosphere and its associated albedo reflect away 30% of the incoming solar energy (like the reflective panel behind a car’s windshield) the earth is cooler with an atmosphere and not warmer per greenhouse theory.
Because of the major (>60%) non-radiative heat transfer processes of the atmospheric molecules the surface of the earth cannot radiate as a black body and there is no “extra” energy for the greenhouse gasses to “trap”/absorb/radiate/“warm” the earth.
No greenhouse effect, no CO2 warming, no man caused climate change.
No problem.
Now, c’mon. Math is hard! We’re talking about AOC and fellow progs here . . .
The specific heat of air has yet to be changed. Until the value is updated there is no heating by CO2 in the atmosphere.
See Anthony’s CO2 glass jar experiment.
Can Congress legislate a new specific heat of air? How about the European Commission? How about the UN General Assembly?
The moon disproves your hypothesis. Where the sun shines it is very hot, 260f. Where the sun doesn’t shine it’s extremely cold, -280f. The average would be about -10f (which shows how useless some averages are). Neither extreme is habitable by humans without extreme protection. The presence of an atmosphere on earth means the average is hotter. This is regardless of any effect of CO2.
What atmospheric measurements are you talking about as the average temperature of the Moon? The temperatures you have mentioned are at the VERY SURFACE of the Moon and are therefore meaningless. What’s the temperature(s) of the Moon where you would place Stevenson screens?
You need these to compare with the Earth’s temperature. The trouble with you “greenhouse” adherents is that you’re off on some hypothetical, unreal , imaginary modelling…. 1) Earth with no atmosphere. 2) The Earth with an atmosphere. Sorry , that’s just non- thinking crap. Temperatures on this Earth are only WITH an atmosphere, that’s reality… and the temperatures of this atmosphere is largely determined by SEA temperatures. So you cannot separate the OCEANS from the atmosphere when considering temperature. Sorry, the oceans are part of the “atmosphere” , you can’t just hypothetically separate them out.
Look, here’s reality, the atmosphere COOLS the surface. When I have a hot cup of tea, I might blow on it … add more atmosphere … to cool it down. When I’m hot , will turn up the fan a notch …. add more atmosphere… to cool me down. When I’m outside on a still cold day… the wind might blow a bit … add more atmosphere.. and I will suffer some wind CHILL.
“When I have a hot cup of tea, I might blow on it … add more atmosphere … to cool it down. When I’m hot , will turn up the fan a notch …. add more atmosphere… to cool me down. When I’m outside on a still cold day… the wind might blow a bit … add more atmosphere.. and I will suffer some wind CHILL.”
None of those things “add atmosphere”, they merely move air around.
The rest of your post is garbage.
But, but, but … you are describing convective cooling. Radiative heating is so much more powerful,
Do I need a \sarc for the second sentence?
We need some respected scientists in the USA who don’t buy in to the theory of the world ending in 12 years or other extreme climate change predictions to contact politicians of both parties and start making the case against these nonsensical projections. The hard “progressives” are using this as a political wedge and they are getting traction and they will win – simply because they are advertising and people believe advertising if it’s repeated enough.
The more rational minds of the climate debate need to step in and advertise to the politicians and the general public that:
– the “world will end in 12 years” prediction is so wild even Michael Mann said it was too extreme
– the past predictions of climate disaster (e.g. ice-free arctic, no more snow, high average temps) have been consistently wrong
– the archeological record has indicated the world has had higher temps in the past than are being experienced now.
These are examples I remember off the top of my head from reading WUWT over the past years. I am sure there are more facts out there that counter the extreme positions. There needs to be a concerted campaign to get this information to politicians so they don’t feel like they have to jump on the Green New Deal bandwagon to keep their seat in Congress.
Scientists can not change the direction of a religion. There is no point of connection, and AGW is a religion. If you don’t believe, you’re a denier, and there is no point in listening to you. You are faithless.
I’m from Oregon and I can tell you Earl Blumenauer is about as bad as it gets.
This does not surprise me at all.
Thanks for the heads up…..I guess.
The guy in an idiot. I got gerrymandered into his district a few years ago. Strictly a Portland super lib. Hey Earl, perhaps you could provide a list of all the CAGW emergencies here in Oregon and all the mitigation that has been needed…..which is absolutely zero.
Not that I want to “ad hom” him but he seems to be the Earle of Blumenidiots.
I’m going to pass that one on locally.
Earl Blumenauer is not the president. His declaration of an emergency is a stunt with no force behind it. Trump’s declaration of a national emergency is the real deal.
From the article: “Blumenauer, who has endorsed the progressive Green New Deal resolution and is active on environmental and renewable energy issues, circulated a letter to colleagues Friday seeking support for a resolution that would declare the “sense of Congress” that climate change is a national emergency.”
I think this is a great idea! Let’s get everyone in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate on record as to where they stand on this issue. We might be able to smoke out some weak Republicans with this method! We’ll know who to vote against next election.
Of course, a “sense of Congress” is just an opinion. Producing veto-proof legislation is the only thing that will work for the alarmist Democrats, and I don’t think they have the votes for that. So they ae just blowing smoke with their national emergency declaration.
I hope you aren’t from his district. I have to misfortune to be from his district, no one from Multnomah County (his district) gets elected to any office unless a Democrat (state legislator, city council, or dog catcher) The Republican Party has nearly given up.
Well, Oregon Rep. Earl may have a valid point, just look at the advisory of the California Highway Patrol: Stay away from the ski resorts in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, there’s too much snow, you can’t get there and even if you could the deep snow presents a dangerous avalanche risk. I hope he can save us from this climate menace. Sarc X 100.
I hear there’s copycat resolutions introduced in India and China…..
My local council have already copy-catted this idea and have passed resolutions using the ‘climate change emergency’ concept’.
When I stop fuming I will write to them to try to get our roads fixed and garbage collected, the ’emergencies’ my rates are paying them to control.
I bet one of those emergencies is an all expenses trip to your local councils’ twined town somewhere in Europe.
I say, Bring It On. The only “emergency” solution for the supposed CO2 “problem” that can be implemented quickly is nuclear energy. Clear those regulations that slow down the building of nuclear plants.
100+
They can declare what they want, but they don’t have the power to enforce it without the Senatae and President.
And Trump’s National Emergency is only one of about thirty at the moment, so anyone claiming he should lose now because otherwise he might lose later is simply trying to prevent him building a wall.
So, is Blumenauer using la-la-land standard of proof to support such a claim? And by “la-la-land standard of proof”, I mean computer climate models.
Has Trump used computer models for his take on the border situation? I think not.
I guess when everybody and everything are equal, one standard equals another. Therein lies the huge problem — lack of rational discrimination taken to the extreme is anarchy.
Blumenauer has no evidence that CO2 is the control knob of the Earth’s atmosphere or that there is a national emergency because of CO2.
Trump has plenty of evidence there is an emergency on the U.S. southern border.
It’s a difference between fantasy and reality. One you can’t see, and one you can.
I think its an emergency with the green dems. Their lies are falling apart fast, and they know it.
I do hope so, for the sake of the country and the mostly-free world.
AOC’s GND would be disaster for not only the US but the whole world. The US has been the #1 economy for over 150 years. The GND would take us down to at least #30 taking the rest of the economies with it We have been guaranteeing free trade for 70 years that would go out the window. Iran and Saudi Arabia would be at each other’s throats cutting off the supply of the Gulf oil. China, Japan, and everyone else will be at each other’s throats trying to save their economies. The number of people in poverty would jump astronomically. Can you say New Dark Ages?
Its a sharp fight and all Republican office holders will be needed to hold and win.
Controlling illegal immigration has been an issue in the USA for decades. President Trump is the first leader unwilling to accept the false promises of ideologically motivated Leftists and their all to often Chamber of Commerce compliant allies. We are fighting our own allies on this one.
The false issue of global warming doesn’t require government action. Republicans who can’t understand this should be given a primary and booted out. If they survive that let a Democrat take the seat.
“Controlling illegal immigration has been an issue in the USA for decades.”
Yes, I remember writing in Usenet’s alt.politics, back in 2004, about how President George W. Bush was on the wrong side of the immigration issue, when it became clear he was not going to do anything serious about stopping illegal aliens from entering the country.
Bush *was* on the wrong side of the issue. That’s one reason we now have Trump instead of George’s brother, Jeb, as our president. And thank God for that because Jeb is just as bad as George when it comes to illegal aliens.
They are loving men. They don’t mind giving billions and billions of our tax dollars away to people who don’t belong here, and feel really good about themselves for doing so. It ain’t their money, I guess!
What a bunch of losers these wobbly Republicans are. They have been infected with a desire to please the Leftwing media because they think that is the route to political power for not only Democrats but for Republicans, too.
They don’t want to antagonize the press, so they shut themselves up and don’t complain much when the MSM trashes them. Of course, you can understand why, after seeing what happens to a guy like Trump who does take the press on. He gets trashed relentlessly. Most of our wimpy Republicans can’t stand that kind of pressure and avoid it like the plague, but not Trump. Trump takes it and dishes it back out to them, every time.
I’ve been hoping for a conservative politician to take on the leftwing lies, all my life, and now here hs is!!!
Trump pays a price because the Leftwing Media can’t stand the truth, but Trump tells them the truth anyway. The most hurtful truth he tells them is their political ideology is a path to death and destruction for anyone foolish enough to follow that path. And Trump shows everyone a better way to live than under the thumb of socialism. Trump actually gets results.
True, but the Republicans need to grow spines and say true things, like “more CO2 in the air is good for living things” and “CO2 is NOT the controller of climate change.” and “renewable energy is unreliable and expensive” and “wind and solar power cannot scale and is not ready to replace fossil fuels without great costs”.
All that may be condensed to one catch phrase for thinking Republicans. “To restrict fossil fuels based on predictions of humanity’s impending catastrophic doom by misanthropic Maltusians is effin’ crazy.”
This is comment is reposted and slightly edited from a comment I made over on Judith Curry’s blog last week:
————————————————–
Near the end of one of Scott Adams’ daily Periscope podcasts, he mentions his desire to moderate a debate between mainstream climate scientists and the climate science skeptics concerning the existence and dangers of climate change.
As Scott Adams would manage it, the debaters would not be facing each other in the same venue. Rather, they would be asked in a Periscope interview to present their five most persuasive arguments for their position.
As I myself view Adam’s proposal, his podcasted debate might serve as a dry run for a larger public debate over today’s mainstream climate science, a debate which might go critical mass if America’s voters are ever asked to make serious personal and economic sacrifices in the name of fighting climate change.
Among his other pursuits, Scott Adams is an expert in the art and science of persuasion. He is looking for a short list of arguments from each side of the AGW question that would be persuasive to those people who are not climate scientists themselves but who have an interest in hearing summaries of the opposing arguments.
It is clear from listening to Adam’s thoughts on his proposed debate that he does not have a grasp of the most basic fundamentals of each side of the question. Nor does he understand how those basic fundamentals influence the content and rhetoric of the science debate. Anyone who participated in this debate would have to educate Scott Adams on the basics in a way that is comprehensible to the layman.
The other problem for those representing the skeptical position is that Adams views the question as having only two very distinct sides. He does not understand that a middle position exists which covers the many uncertainties of today’s climate science.
In his look at how the scientific debate is being pursued by both sides, Scott Adams frames the science question in a stark terms. Is the earth warming, or is not warming? If it is warming, is CO2 the cause, or is it not the cause? Is warming dangerous, or is it not dangerous? If it is dangerous, then how dangerous is it?
Judith Curry’s name was mentioned as a climate scientist who might be a good representative for the skeptic side of the debate.
Presumably, in addition to presenting their side of the question, each representative would be asked to refute the five most persuasive arguments offered by the opposition. I would suggest that these arguments might cover some or all of these topics:
— The fundamental basis of today’s mainstream climate science including the postulated water vapor feedback mechanism.
— Ocean warming versus atmospheric warming as the true measure of the presence and the rate of increase of climate change.
— The accuracy, validity, and uncertainties of the modern temperature record and of the paleoclimate temperature record.
— The accuracy, validity, and uncertainties of the general circulation models, the sea level rise projections, and the projections of AGW-related environmental, human, and economic impacts.
— The costs and benefits of alternative public policy responses to climate change including the practicality of relying on wind and solar for our energy needs, and the future role of nuclear power.
— The costs and benefits of massive government spending on Green New Deal programs versus the use of government-mandated carbon pricing mechanisms combined with an aggressive application of the Clean Air Act and with an invocation of Executive Branch emergency powers .
If Scott Adams goes forward with his podcasted debate, will anyone show up to defend the mainstream climate science side of the question?
If no one does, then someone from the skeptic side must present the mainstream’s side in a way that is both true to the mainstream position but which also drastically condenses the raw science into something the layman can understand.
Here is an example of just how condensed a basic description of today’s mainstream climate science might have to be in order to be comprehensible to the laymen — and also to Scott Adams himself — as a description of today’s mainstream theory:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Mainstream Climate Science Theory: CO2 as the Earth’s Temperature Control Knob
Over time periods covering the last 10,000 years of the earth’s temperature history, carbon dioxide has been the earth’s primary temperature control knob.
Although water vapor is the earth’s primary greenhouse gas, adding carbon dioxide further warms the atmosphere thus allowing it to hold more water vapor than it otherwise could. The additional carbon dioxide amplifies the total warming effect of both gases, CO2 and water vapor, through a feedback mechanism operating between CO2’s warming effects and water vapor’s warming effects.
For example, if carbon dioxide’s pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm is doubled to 560 ppm by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2’s basic effect of a 1C to 1.5C warming per CO2 doubling is amplified by the water vapor feedback mechanism into a much larger 2.5C to 4C range of total warming.
Atmospheric and ocean circulation mechanisms affect the rate and extent of atmospheric and ocean warming. These mechanisms transport heat within the atmosphere and the oceans, and move heat between the atmosphere and the oceans. These circulation mechanisms also affect how much of the additional trapped heat is being stored in the oceans, how much heat is being stored in the atmosphere, and how much heat is being lost to outer space.
Uncertainties in our basic knowledge of atmospheric and ocean circulation mechanisms make it difficult to predict with exact precision how much warming will occur if CO2 concentration is doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
These uncertainties also limit our ability to predict exactly how fast the warming will occur and to predict with exact certainty where and how much of the additional trapped heat will be stored in the oceans versus in the atmosphere. Thus a range of warming predictions can be expected and must be studied further.
Depending upon which assumptions are being made concerning how atmospheric and ocean circulation mechanisms work, and depending upon how much CO2 will be added to the atmosphere over the next one-hundred years, climate modeling exercises now indicate that a range of from 2.5C to 4C of total global warming over and above pre-industrial temperatures is likely to occur before the year 2100.
(End of Summarized Theory, CO2 as Control Knob)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
As a layman in trying to understand climate science topics, you have to crawl before you can walk.
If the skeptic’s arguments are to be persuasive to the non-scientist layman, then explaining the basics of today’s mainstream climate science is a necessary step prior to explaining the uncertainties of the science and its predictions. It’s even a necessary prior step if one completely rejects the basic tenants of today’s mainstream climate science. An informed debate has to start somewhere.
As someone who is not a climate scientist myself, the description I’ve written above is my own highly-condensed summary of what I understand to be the mainstream climate scientist’s basic theory. The description is presented in terms that might be understandable to the non-scientist layman while also being true to the basic tenants of the mainstream climate science narrative.
Is my example of a highly summarized description actually understandable to the non-scientist layman? Is it actually true to the scientific position mainstream climate scientists now hold? Is it useful as a starting point for understanding the overall context of the debate?
Here is a most important point concerning what Scott Adams is trying to accomplish.
Adams is not asking the opposing sides to prove scientifically that their side of the climate change question is the scientific truth. He is asking them to offer a defense of their side of the question that is understandable to the non-scientist and is persuasive as debating arguments go.
In his look at how the scientific debate is being pursued by both sides, Scott Adams frames the science question in stark terms. Is the earth warming, or is not warming? If it is warming, is the cause CO2, or is it not CO2? Is the warming dangerous, or is it not dangerous? If it is dangerous, how dangerous is it?
Logically, any level of warming regardless of its rate of increase could become dangerous if the warming continues indefinitely into the future. A 0.2C per decade rate of warming will produce a 2C increase in a hundred years time, 4C in two-hundred years time. If we continue adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and if CO2 will indeed be the earth’s temperature control knob for the next several thousand years, then when will the warming stop?
What is left out of the current debate over climate change is the question of certainty versus uncertainty.
If America’s voting public is ever asked to make serious personal and economic sacrifices in the name of fighting climate change, and if the debate over today’s mainstream climate science then goes critical mass, the question of certainty versus uncertainty will become a deciding factor as to who wins and who loses that debate.
As long as you remember that when you are playing in Adams’ world, you are playing in persuasion, which has been entirely on the side of the glo-warmers for the last couple decades. Facts in that world don’t matter nearly as much as the ability to persuade. Take a look at his Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter for a primer on what we need to learn, practice and use.
A moderated debate would be a useful exercise and very likely a useful exercise as long as we approach it as an exercise in persuasion rather than an exercise in figuring out whose facts are better (which is what engineers and scientists usually do). If we do the latter, we will get our back sides handed to us by the glo-warmers.
To be effective, we MUST learn the tools and techniques of persuasion. It is the only way to turn our propagandized and terrorized young, products of the public schools and colleges over the last couple decades who really do believe this stuff. Cheers –
All that would be lovely, if the “arguments” were in fact rational. But they are not–they are emotional, belief rather than evidence-based, and the alarmist side habitually wins by shouting down, de-platforming or employing scurrilous ad-hominem attacks in lieu of debate. Which is why we’ll never see that much-to-be-desired showdown.
95% of all human decisions are based on emotion
Dittos to what Goldrider said. This isn’t a rational discussion it is faith based.
The difficulty that lies ahead is does one stick to their principles, that is argue facts, reason and logic, or does one realize that facts, reason and logic may score rhetorical points, but that smug look doesn’t do one any good when the Green Leap Forward starts piling up the causalities.
So is it a matter of persuasion? The Warmunists want material wins, that is they want power and control so that facts, reason and logic have little to no role in the winning of hearts and minds when lies, propaganda and words that trigger emotions are far more effective in achieving the goal.
That is the reality of The Ends Justify The Means. The Ends here, is do we have human flourishing or do we give way to the failed Totalitarian State? The former has no chance with a population that only marches to emotions but tunes out to reason.
To paraphrase former president ‘W’, We need to give up our values in order to save them.
Just from watching the twitter back-and-forth, Scott Adams, IMO, is not the person for this. Let him stick to cartoons.
I completely agree!
btw, it’s not about persuasion, but about telling the truth. Truth itself is the persuasion. Scott is a trained hypnotist, and for some reason is enamored with being able to persuade people whether with truth, or not.
There is a segment of society that will not believe the truth, no matter how persuasive the arguments, because their identities are built upon rejecting truth. They are lost.
And there is another segment that simply wants to know the truth; you’ll never reach these people with persuasive techniques.
That is so true. I have seen Q&A sessions of the audience with a lecturer and the lecturer asked “If I could prove to you that [x] is true would you change your mind?” and the questioner said. “No.”
Scott also said (who knows how seriously) that Trump SHOULD declare a National Emergency on the climate. Then use his powers to eliminate all the regulations stifling Nuclear Power, and provide money to start building out third/forth gen nucs.
From a rational constitutional interpretation, that is BS. That was the route Obama was heading down. The federal regulations “stifling” Nuclear Power arise strongly out of Congressionally-enacted legislation, i.e. law and statute, both enviromental and nuclear-industrial. The NRC was formed from the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Much of what regulates civilian nuclear power today in the US comes out of the requirements of that legislation.
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/governing-laws.html
Obama was becoming an Imperial President (the path to Despotism), where his use of self-derived, self-proclaimed “pen and phone” powers clearly violated Separation of Powers on domestic matters (energy production, immigration laws, private land rights) where Congress and the States have power and clear authority. Whereas securing the nation’s border integrity from uncontrolled invasion by foreigners is a fundamental national security duty of the Commander-in-Chief.
Not only were Obama’s pen-and-phone legacy agenda items easily wiped away in less than 18 months by President Trump, historians will likely be very harsh on Obama for trampling on separation of powers. And it was precisely becasue Obama trampled on Separation of Powers, that his most of his legacy was so easily undone.
‘historians will likely be very harsh on Obama for trampling on separation of powers’
That depends on who’s writing – or rewriting – history.
Any president who wants to declare a national emergency over CAGW (human-caused, global warming/climate change) and wants to enact a Green New Deal-type program to address the emergency, would necessarily have to nationalize most U.S. industries to get this done.
President Harry Truman declared a national emergency and tried to nationalize just the steel industry and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court. The same thing would happen today.
The only way a president could implement a New Green Deal would be to declare martial law.
Anyone who thinks there is enough evidence for CO2 to be that much of a danger to the Earth to have to declare martial law or even a national emergency, has been smoking too much of something.
I would like to see you try to make such a case to the public or the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of the biggest problems is there is no such thing as a skeptic position. There are literally dozens of them and skeptics disagree with each other on many issues.
Dr. Curry is probably as good as anyone to argue the uncertainty angle which is one thing that most skeptics agree on. However, I’m not sure that plays well in a debate.
Richard M, that is very true. However, the dynamics of the debate over today’s climate science will change if the majority of the people listening to the debate find themselves under direct pressure from climate activists to make serious sacrifices in their personal lifestyles and in their personal financial circumstances.
If the average Joe and Jane voter find themselves under that kind of pressure from the greens, then they have an incentive to bring the uncertainties of the science into the discussion as to how far public policy should go in fighting climate change.
Because the climate activists have studiously avoided making any demands for real sacrifice up to this point, then the debate over the science has not yet gone critical mass in the way it will go if, for example, America’s green activists put a stiff price on carbon and if they begin using the Clean Air Act to its fullest possible effectiveness in forcing a quick reduction in our carbon emissions.
Driving up the cost of energy, electricity and gas and gasoline/diesel, is the surest way to bring the religion of Human Ccaused Globall Warmining to a screeching halt. Electric providers in western PA have told customers the rise in cost is due to environmental groups’ interference, gas providers have let it be known the cost remaining level or dropping is because they are fighting environmental groups’ interference.
“energy prices would necessarily skyrocket.” – Barack Obama.
Blumenauer represents the environazi part of Oregon. He attended Lewis and Clark College, which is as PC, SJW, AGW as they come. His bio says he’s devoted his entire life to public service. In other words, he’s a poorly educated imbecile who hasn’t done a single worthwhile thing in his miserable, phony life. Why are virtually all the Governors, Senators and Representatives from the big population parts of coastal CA, OR, and WA such total nitwits. Not one of them should even be local dog catcher. Only those dumb enough to vote them into office are lower on the IQ scale. The main national emergency this nation faces are the boneheads who run things.
Thank you.
100+ (from one of his constituents)
He is from Portland. That should tell you all you need to know.
Not content with wrecking Oregon, he wants to drag down the rest of the country too.
Obama declared a dozen national emergencies. All we heard from Democrats was . . . crickets.
Is there a list somewhere? The MSM is not going to remind anyone even now.
Here’s the first link I found on the subject
https://welovetrump.com/2019/01/08/full-list-of-national-emergencies-declared-by-obama-bush-clinton-is-published/
the Obama section lists:
I saw the list with a loc.gov address yesterday, trying to dig it back out now.
Here’s a link to a 2017 CNN articles that contains the same list from the previous posted link
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/politics/national-emergencies-trump-opioid/index.html
Hmm… Sounds like the type of thing that Trump is doing (Nationa Security)
Clinton declared 18, the silence on that score is telling
Yeah, Clinton’s the leader in declaring National Emergencies followed by Obama and then G.W. Bush (who had as many as Carter, Reagan and his daddy combined). The very first National Emergency (declared by Carter) Under the National Emergency Act is still in effect, while all the ones declared by Reagan and G.H.W. Bush have since expired.
“Obama declared a dozen national emergencies. All we heard from Democrats was . . . crickets.”
That’s all we heard from Republicans, too. Hypocrits!
One good thing about all this: We are going to smoke out the weak Republicans over some of these issues. And once we identify them, we need to vote them out of office at the next opportunity.
They are holding up progress, and giving the Democrats a chance to get back in presidentail power which might just be the end of all our hopes and dreams. I know that sounds a little out there, but think about the consequences had Barack and Hillary been successful in their undermining of the US election. If they do one successfully, they will do them all after that, and when you consider how close we came (and the coup is still ongoing) then maybe it’s not so out there at all.
If you are a socialist, you don’t care. If you don’t want socialists telling you how to run your life, you care very much.
Once again the shock lessons on just how fragile democracy and the Constitution are come from the left.
What exactly constitutes “A National Emergency”?
Let’s see, a century from now we just might see some negative side-effects from climate change, which progressive science tenuously links to increased atmospheric CO2.
On the other hand, there is presently a hoard of illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border at will, containing both people fleeing their dictators and people wishing to infiltrate and destroy our way of life as soon as they can.
Pick ’em like you see ’em…
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/08/doj-report-nearly-half-fed-crimes-near-mexican-border/
I don’t get the sense that things have improved since 2013-2014.
“What exactly constitutes “A National Emergency”?”
The president is not restricted from declaring a national emergency. It is up to the president to decide what is a national emergency. No consultations necessary.
On top of the 1976 National Emergncyy act, the president also has the constitutional authority to deny access to any illegal alien or group of aliens to the United States at any time he deems it to be necessary for any reason he deems necessary. Trump hasn’t exercised that authority yet.
The president has lots of laws giving him lots of authority because they are necessary to protect the United States and that is his primary job, above all else, and the U.S. Constitution backs the president up.
There is only one Commander-in-Chief.
Correct, he can declare a national emergency. However he still cannot spend unappropriated money as a result of this “emergency.” Congress has already said “NO” to his request for wall money, subverting the will of Congress with this “emergency” is where he is making a major blunder.
Once again, crickets when Obama did the same thing.
No MarkW, Obama did not declare an “emergency” and spend unappropriated funds.
Let’s see – how many trillions just evaporated under Obama’s ‘stimulus’, resulting in nothing but ‘continuing resolutions’, where we haven’t even got back to working under an actual budget?
Isn’t it great when you can screw your country within technical boundaries?
That was Obama’s specialty. And destruction is always easier than creation.
Joel, under the “stimulus” and the continuing resolutions, the money spent was appropriated. Please tell all of us here when did Obama spend money that was not appropriated by Congress?
Didn’t SAY that, did I?
What Keith here is demonstrating is the myopic method of rationalizing by focusing on one aspect – see? It’s all on the up-and-up because it’s appropriated.
So Trump’s finding money by working through the system too.
Notice how he also completely ducked that whole ‘evaporated trillions’ thing.
You are dead wrong Joel, Trump is not “finding” any money, he’s diverting previously appropriated money to fund his vanity project.
ROTFLMAO @ur momisugly Joel.
…
“Trillions” don’t evaporate.
…
For example, have you seen the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve lately?
..
Got a citation for your “evaporated” trillions?
Keith, where did the money Obama gave to the IPCC for the so called relief fund come from?
Congress never authorized that expenditure.
Like all leftists, you are utterly blind to the sins of anyone you like.
Funding for the IPCC was in the appropriation bill for the State Department and Treasury Department.
..
‘In its fiscal year 2016 budget request, the administration asked for $500 million – $350 million for the State Department and $150 million for the Treasury Department – as a first step towards meeting that $3 billion objective.” </b?
..
https://www.thegwpf.com/us-congress-bill-to-drop-funding-for-ipcc-green-climate-fund/
Get educated MarkW, so you don’t look stupid: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/19/president-obamas-last-minute-500-million-donation-green-climate-fund/
“Congress has already said “NO” to his request for wall money”
Actually, Congress said yes and gave Trump $1.375 billion for the wall. Another point the Supreme Court will take into consideration. Congress has already authorized Trump to build more wall in the latest legislation. They can’t come back and whine to the Surpreme Court that he can’t do that. Well, they can, but they will be laughed out of court if they do.
The president has a lot of authority when it comes to national security. It’s his primary duty and the U.S. Constitution gives him the authority to carry out this duty, partisan, political Democrats notwithstanding.
“Please tell all of us here when did Obama spend money that was not appropriated by Congress?”
What about that approximately $1.4 billion in cash Obama gave to the Mad Mullahs of Iran to finalize Obama’s nuclear deal with them? Was that ever appropriated by Congress? I have never seen any mention that Congress had anything to do with this payment. Got anything?
As I understand it, during Obama’s administration, the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] accepted the “State of Palestine” as a signatory, which should have triggered a U.S. funding prohibition.
U.S. law forbids any taxpayer dollars to fund international organizations that recognize “Palestine” as a sovereign state.
Nonetheless, Obama prioritized the U.N. Green Climate Fund over other, more pressing crises, proceeded to give 1 Billion dollars to this organization, blatantly violating the US law, in doing so. Sadly, congress was irresponsible in allowing him to get away with it.
He asked for $5.7 billion for his wall and Congress said NO.
The money appropriated is for “fencing” and repair of existing barriers, not for a new wall.
…
On his declaration of an “emergency” he said, “I didn’t need to do this”
…
He couldn’t get funding when the GOP controlled both houses of congress in the past two years, and now losing the House to the Democrats makes his effort to circumvent Congress’s power of the purse a bad decision.
Abbott, Obama did not “give” Iran any money. The payment you reference was a court ordered settlement for a long running dispute that involved military equipment purchased by Iran but not delivered.
I should have posted this link here: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/index.html
Once again, Keith demonstrates that his principles are infinitely flexible.
The courts can’t force the executive to spend money that congress hasn’t authorized.
I apologize to you Mr. MarkW, because you don’t seem to understand the facts in this matter. First of all, Iran paid the United States for the purchase of military equipment. Now, the United States did not deliver the purchased equipment, so right off the bat, the United States has a boatload of money in the Treasury.
…
So, the court ordered the United States to return this money with interest back to Iran.
…
Now, tell me what you don’t understand about this matter.
Keith, Keith, Keith, for someone who likes to quote the constitution, you sure don’t know it.
The Judiciary, Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal. None can force the others to do anything.
That’s how the thing is written.
The courts simply do not have to power to “order” the executive to do anything.
It’s in their, perhaps if you read it and educated yourself, you’d stop looking like such an idiot.
‘Abbott, Obama did not “give” Iran any money.’
A perfect example of rationalization/justification all for the aid and comfort of a long-standing enemy.
You know damn well that’s what he did. Because he sure didn’t have to – but sure tried to sneak it by, didn’t he?
Now, the United States did not deliver the purchased equipment, so right off the bat, the United States has a boatload of money in the Treasury.
Keith, it doesn’t matter how the money got into the Treasury. Obama could have personally cut a check to the treasury and it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference because once the money is in the Treasure *ONLY* an act of congress has the power to appropriate it. Not the Courts and not the president. By diverting funds to give to Iran *without* an act of Congress Obama did what you are accusing Trump of doing, only Trump is actually doing it *with* an act of Congress – the National Emergencies Act which does allow him to divert funds to deal with the declared emergency. Thank the congress of 1976 for that.
LOL @ur momisugly Endicott……..if you overpay your federal income taxes, an act of Congress is not necessary for the IRS to cut you a refund check. The funds are in the Treasury you know.
..
You really don’t get it do you?…….Think of the Iran payment in the same manner.
So, the court ordered the United States to return this money with interest back to Iran.
What part of the constitutional separation of powers that leaves the appropriation of money to congress don’t you understand? The court can order what ever the hell it wants but it can’t make the president violate the constitution. And, constitutionally, the courts don’t have the power to appropriate money. Constitutionally, the president also does not have that power regardless of what the courts try to tell him to do. It’s up to congress to act to authorize the spending. The president can’t spend the money on whatever he wants *without* an act of congress authorizing the spending. Per the constitution, power of the purse rests with congress (specifically the house) and no one else.
Endicott, it doesn’t take an act of Congress to permit the IRS to cut a check from the US Treasury to pay your refund on your taxes. Same thing applies to the payment to Iran, they didn’t get the military gear, so the court ordered refund didn’t need an act of Congress.
if you overpay your federal income taxes, an act of Congress is not necessary for the IRS to cut you a refund check
You ignorance is showing. It was an Act of Congress that authorized the IRS to collect and refund tax money in the first place. Congress doesn’t need to authorize each individual tax refund as it already made the authorization in the creation of the IRS
Endicott, it doesn’t take an act of Congress to permit the IRS to cut a check from the US Treasury to pay your refund on your taxes
Keith, the IRS had nothing to do with the money sent to Iran. Iran is not a US taxpayer so the IRS is irrelevant. Sorry to break it to you but Congress alone has the authority to approve *any* payments to foreign entities.
And then there’s the money Obama spent on the UN Green Climate Fund. Putting aside the US law that prohibits taxpayer dollars from being used to fund any U.N. agency that recognizes the Palestinian Authority as a state (thus making the payments *ILLEGAL*) the GOP congress said no to paying the Green Climate fund. Even before paris GOP lawmakers repeatedly pledged to block any funds and specifically did not appropriate any money for the Green Climate Fund in that years omnibus spending bill (as you said about the current congress saying no to Trump on the wall, the GOP congress back then said no to Obama on the Green Climate Fund), yet Obama made two $500 Million payments to the UN’s Green Climate Fund anyway.
LOL @ur momisugly Endicott…….
.
.
“Sorry to break it to you but Congress alone has the authority to approve *any* payments to foreign entities.” </b.
…
You are correct.
…
However, the REFUND to Iran was not a “payment” it was a REFUND
…
Do you know what the definition of REFUND is?
Really? In your special dictionary ransom is spelled r e f u n d? Okey dokey, then.
Endicott says: “the money Obama spent on the UN Green Climate Fund.”
…
I hate to break it to you but the money that went to the UN Climate fund was appropriated by Congress.
..
So your complaint that Obama spent unappropriated funds is trash.
..
Next argument please………………………..
Endicott, your head is stuck so far up the butt of the right wing echo chamber, you’ve lost touch with reality.
However, the REFUND to Iran was not a “payment” it was a REFUND
It came out of the US treasury, only Congress has the authority to authorize how such money is appropriated. Denying that fact doesn’t change it. Besides which, what Obama illegally gave to Iran in a pallet of cash under the cover of night is DWARFED by the amount of money courts have ruled Iran owes the US for Iranian-sponsored terrorism. Rather than “refund” them in the form of cash, he could have deducted it from the billions from court rulings that Iran Owes the US (which he would not have needed congressional approval for).
I hate to break it to you but the money that went to the UN Climate fund was appropriated by Congress.
Not for the purpose Obama used it for. Congress specifically said NO to appropriating money for the Green Climate fund – You know just like congress said NO to Trump’s wall. Stop being such a blatant hypocrite.
Endicott, your head is stuck so far up the butt of the right wing echo chamber, you’ve lost touch with reality.
Bwahahahahaha. Coming from you, who doesn’t know what reality is, that’s rich.
The funniest thing about this “emergency” is that when Trump announced it, he said: “I didn’t need to do this”
….
His own words show this isn’t an “emergency.”
….
The courts will take note of what he said.
Sketchy Keith just demonstrated classic progressive misrepresentation – what THAT statement meant is that he should have been able to rely on congress to do their jobs. He shouldn’t have HAD to do this.
Joel, Congress did do their job, they told him NO to his request for funding for his wall.
No, Keith – that’s congress pointedly NOT doing their job.
That’s congress abusing their power to screw the country.
I.E. the progressive agenda.
Joel, you need to realize that elections have consequences. The recent mid term 2018 elections has divided the power in Congress, and given the Democrats control of the House. Now, the House (via Pelosi) has told Trump NO WALL FUNDING. It’s not an abuse of power it’s the consequence of elections. Funny how when the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress for the two years prior, they still couldn’t fund Trump’s wall.
“Funny how when the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress for the two years prior, they still couldn’t fund Trump’s wall.”
No, that’s not funny, it’s pathetic. I blame Paul Ryan. He lied to Trump. Trump thought he could trust Paul Ryan. Turns out, he couldn’t.
Republicans are their own worst enemies sometimes. In this era of authoritarianism, Republicans can’t afford to stumble if they value our freedoms.
Abbott: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/index.html
Yes, Keith – I’ve heard that catch-phrase. I also understand all the rationalizing progressives do to justify themselves.
Just to be clear. I’m not trying to convince you of anything – you’re not here to do anything but push messaging – I’m just illustrating how people like you do it.
It’s called a ‘red-herring’, a ‘straw-man’ – and what you do is hijack an argument and turn it into something else.
In this case, the issue is boarder security, and and an end-run around congress – and you’ve tried to turn it into an appropriations issue, because that’s the progressive talking point.
You used this same talking point to dodge the fact that Obama constantly (and braggadociosly) made end-runs around congress – the Dreamer’s Act is STILL in place.
Either way, it’s still bullshit. And bottom line – progressive Democrats (and yes, many Republicans) are flat refusing to perform one of the primary duties – one of the ONLY duties – of government, and that is to defend its country’s citizens and borders.
A government that won’t defend it’s own borders – Hell, YES, that’s a damned emergency.
Yep, had Congress done its primary duty, securing America’s borders, Trump would not have had to declare a National Emergency over it. Glad Keith pointed that out!
The courts will take note of what he said
I’m sure the 9th circuit will. It won’t be the first time they’ve taken his words out of context.
Joel, Congress did do their job, they told him NO to his request for funding for his wall.
No, Keith, Congress actually said yes by giving Trump $1.375 billion which is less than required to get the job done, hence the need to invoke an “emergency” to cover the difference.
I see my eggcorn, there… should have been “horde”.🤔
THis was tried in, I believe, 2010 and they got soundly smacked down over it. Individual events, such as massive flooding along Mississippi River valley, fall into the category of issues which can trigger a National Emergency. And their attempt to use same for “gun control” will twirl round the toilet, too. The massive amount of illegal narcotics and illegal aliens do fall into the category of issues which can trigger a National Emergency, as they have.
The Dimocrats going full retard on climate and energy is the real national emergency.
And then what? Ban cars, stop the sale of gas, force everyone to be vegans? Oregon will be a lot of fun.
Automobile transportation is a national emergency.
Coal fired power plants are a national emergency.
Raising cattle is a national emergency.
Hey, why just limit it to one — climate change — when you can break it down into MANY emergencies ? Many emergencies, thus, make doom look even gloomier.
Internet child porn is a national emergency.
I could go on.
This sounds logical. Trump declares an emergency. The Dems declare an emergency. Meh. How is this a story.
If I was in charge of a social division and disrupt campaign against America from Moscow, I would promote this guy after pulling back from Facebook operations. In an earlier era the Soviet labs and teams looked at ways to disrupt the American food supply and energy grid. Today they have complicit local resistance groups to do that work.
“If I was in charge of a social division and disrupt campaign against America from Moscow, I would promote . . .”
I would promote radical Democrat and Leftwing Media in their spreading of hate, anger and division in the United States. The American Left is doing the work of the Russian propagandists for them.
Democrats and Russian propaganda, spreading division everywhere we turn. Two peas in a pod.
Obviously if Trump can create a phony emergency the Democrats will too.
Protecting the borders is one of the few legitimate duties of any government. So claiming that building a wall to protect those borders is a ‘phony emergency’ is simply ludicrous.
The Democrats promised Reagan funding for a wall decades ago, in return for an amnesty on Undocumented Democrat Voters. They got their amnesty, and Americans didn’t get their wall because the Democrats never provided the promised funding.
All Democrats care about is more votes from foreigners, to do the votes Americans won’t do. They don’t care about protecting Americans, because Americans don’t vote for them any more.
Regardless of your (wrong) opinion about the emergency being phony, Democrats can and will do so when given the chance and would have even had Trump never declared this emergency.
“Obviously if Trump can create a phony emergency the Democrats will too.”
That’s the argument. Let’s see how successful they are at promoting their CAGW emergency.
They will be successful possibly at getting everyone to vote on the record, but they won’t be able to pass any legislation that would address the emergency. It won’t pass in the U.S. Senate, and the president would veto it if it did.
Well if Congress wants the authority to declare a National Emergency, then they need to change the law. Currently only the President has that authority, as given to the Executive by Congress in the National Emergencies Act.
This really isn’t that complicated, but our “betters” are intent on sowing as much confusion and doubt as possible.
They’re not gonna like it when the bullets start flying.