Posted on 11/22/2016 9:14:02 PM PST by Olog-hai
Yep - new engineer gonna take over the train and start removing a lot of tracks....
Oh, oh, oh! I know the answer!
Door number 2!
I choose ‘Be Left Behind’
STFU and GTFO.
ESAD and KMA.
I thougbt it was second hand smoke.
“Science tells us” reveals so much about a speaker or writer.
So...if I believe in Global Warming, I’ll be saved, otherwise, I’ll burn.
Sounds a lot like the climate changers have done a one-on-one replacement of God.
It’s the religion of the left, get on board, pay your dues, or die.
Pack your bag, Gina.
We’re not buying what you’re selling.
Dang, my BS meter just broke.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
Eisenhower’s "Military-Industrial Complex" Address
The New Deal, Dean Acheson wrote approvingly in a book called A Democrat Looks At His Party, “conceived of the federal government as the whole people organized to do what had to be done.” A year later, Mr. (Arthur) Larson wrote A Republican Looks At His Party, and made much the same claim in his book for Modern Republicans. The “underlying philosophy” of the New Republicanism, said Mr. Larson, is that “if a job has to be done to meet the needs of the people, and no one else can do it, then it is the proper function of the federal government.” Here we have, by prominent spokesmen of both political parties, an unqualified repudiation of the principle of limited government. …
— TCOAC, ch. 2, p. 15.
… I have already alluded to the book, A Republican Looks at His Party, which is an elaborate rationalization of the “Modern Republican” approach to current problems. (It does the job just as well, I might add, for the Democrats’ approach.) Mr. Larson devotes a good deal of space to the question of States’ Rights. He contends that while there is “a general presumption” in favor of States’ Rights, thanks to the Tenth Amendment, this presumption must give way whenever it appears to the federal authorities that the States are not responding satisfactorily to “the needs of the people.” This is a paraphrase of his position but not, I think, an unjust one. And if this approach appears to be a high-handed way of dealing with an explicit constitutional provision, Mr. Larson justifies the argument by summoning the concept that “for every right there is a corresponding duty.” “When we speak of States’ Rights,” he writes, “we should never forget to add that there go with those rights the corresponding States’ responsibilities.” Therefore, he concludes, if the States fail to do their duty, they have only themselves to blame when the federal government intervenes.
The trouble with this argument is that it treats the Constitution of the United States as a kind of handbook in political theory, to be heeded or ignored depending on how it fits the plans of contemporary federal officials. The Tenth Amendment is not “a general assumption,” but a prohibitory rule of law. The Tenth Amendment recognizes the States’ jurisdiction in certain areas. States’ Rights means that the States have a right to act, or not to act, as they see fit in the areas reserved to them. The States may have duties corresponding to these rights, but the duties are owed to the people of the States, not to the federal government. Therefore, the recourse lies not with the federal government, which is not sovereign, but with the people who are, and who have full power to take disciplinary action. …
— IBID., pp. 27-29
January 21st Gina will be out of work.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/activists-take-myron-ebell-protest-directly-epa
Has someone already posted this about the protest they are projecting on the EPA Building?
The Art of the Deal? Put out the extreme option, and end up with a “less extreme” option and the environmentalists feel like they won one?
Rather than an expert in climate issues, put in a CEO experienced in cleaning house, because everyone at EPA will be against Trump. They are crusaders, not just employees.
You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.
Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here, and here
See post 77 where some one got ti right
Trying to influence climate at the man made level is like thinking that you can put out a forest fire by spitting on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.