Posted on 11/14/2014 4:13:23 AM PST by Kaslin
resident Obama flew to China a few days ago and announced a joint environmental pact with the communist regime. The United States will reduce its carbon emissions substantially over the next 11 years. China will do absolutely nothing but hope that its emissions decline after 2030.
The press heralded this as a major accomplishment. The rush from the press as soon as it was announced suggested a high level of coordination. Like lemmings in a staged dive off a cliff, "historic" became the media's rallying cry. There is nothing historic about the deal. In fact, news reports from November 2012 noted that China expected, in 2012, that its carbon emissions would begin to decline after 2030 because of factory upgrades, efficiencies, etc.
Like so much of President Obama's decisions over the past six years, this is another photo-op with a compliant press that does not matter and will do little. In fact, since the beginning of the 21st century, the left has demanded immediate action under the mantra of the "fierce urgency of now." Around 2007, we learned the Arctic would be ice free by last year. It was not. We learned there would be ever-increasing super-storms across the Atlantic. That has not happened, either. Environmentalists have taken to act like Harold Camping, the now-deceased founder of Family Radio Worldwide. Camping repeatedly made headlines for predicting the end of the world.
Environmentalists who have turned their cause into a religion just as frequently engage in apocalyptic, end of world pronouncements. Nonetheless, the best these believers can do is hail as "historic" a plan that requires nothing on China's part and will never get implemented in the United States. It is not a coincidence that President Obama did not do this until after Republicans took control of the United States Senate.
At the same time, President Obama intends to broadly enact immigration reform through executive measures. He will defer or delay the deportation of many, allow many to stay in the United States halfway between the light and shadows, and give more visas to immigrants. The plan is so popular he had to wait until after the election to do it.
Republicans should reciprocate by denying Barack Obama the pleasures of office he enjoys. Make him pay for the power bill in the White House. Shut down all federally controlled golf courses within the flight distance of Marine One. Cut funding for all but security for the first family. Turn Camp David into a refugee processing center. If the president wants to play games, the Republicans should reciprocate and bring back out the petulant man-child characteristics President Obama tries so hard to repress.
Regardless of how Republicans respond, there are two reasons Barack Obama has decided to do both of these things now that the election is over. The first is to try to move beyond the story of last week. Election results are still trickling in, and more Democrats are losing in very close races. He wants to move beyond all talk of Democratic defeat.
More importantly, Democrats on the campaign trail wounded President Obama's ego. They said he no longer matters. They said he would be a lame duck. But he is still president, and Barack Obama desperately wishes everyone to know he is still very relevant. He still has veto power. He still can use executive orders. He can still fail to defend the nation from threats like ISIS.
That, of course, presents a problem for the Democrats. Post-election Pew and Gallup polling show a majority of the public desires Republicans now set the agenda in Washington. In his quest to prove his relevance, Barack Obama insists he still set the agenda. With Democrat party popularity cratering, this will only hurt them more.
Democrats need for the president to sit on the sidelines and let the Republicans screw things up. Instead, their vainglorious leader intends to stay at center stage, demand everyone treat him as relevant and keep screwing up everything he touches. The Republicans, if nothing else, know how to stand out of the way when their opponent is defeating himself.
Doesn’t the Senate still have to ratify treaties?
Yes, but he will probably go for some kind of ‘accord’ or the like. Ultimately unenforceable.
Yes the senate does and it has to be 2/3rds to pass, I believe. I wonder if he is doing this outside of a treaty, like an executive order? If so, congress can nullify any executive order and has done so in the past.
In any case, China is by far the biggest CO2 producer and polluter so if the greenies want to make a huge impact, they should bring manufacturing back to the USA! We have better environmental controls so bring it back!
So we as Republicans are meanwhile, busy beating down Obama on this topic, by demanding a return of American jobs.
Right?
(silence)
Some plates actually go up in value, not these.
Wanting Desperately to Matter
Wow, what a great line to describe most all libs, lefties and progs.
So Americans will spend this weekend freezing and shoveling snow, then turn on their TVs to watch Obama extolling the glories of his signing a stop-global-warming treaty when warming is the most desirable thing they can think of.
yeah....fodder for the tree huggers to make them feel better and something he can tout as ‘meaningful’ - but ultimately impotent.
You anti-Free Trade Luddite! < /sarc >
Last evening at a group dinner I was chatting with a supposedly conservative GOP insider. The conversation morphed into the GOP reaction to his majesty’s green house gas accord with the chicoms. He said he could not believe the gop’s position has been to simply say we have no interest in this and will oppose it rather than looking at it as perhaps being good for the country even if brought up by Obola. I asked you mean an aggrement we cut emissions while the chicoms don’t do anything for over 15 years? He changed the subject. This is what we are dealing with now, brain dead people of influence.
I had dinner with a dear friend last night. She was born in Amsterdam, came to this country as a teen, has always called herself a liberal. Naturalized US citizen. Voted for Obama in 2008, won’t say as to 2012. Very respectful of my views, knows I’m a conservative. Now in her late 40’s, it seems to me she’s beginning to come around.
At any rate, it seems that Obama’s policies, and the dire results, never bothered her. As of last month she still thought Obamacare was a good thing, even though her own premiums went up 80%, and her deductible doubled. She felt she was “doing her part” to help others. She’s a lawyer, child advocate.
Obama’s reaction to 2014 election, however, is really bothering her. She understands democracy, and realizes a message was sent by the people. She told me his arrogance is really pissing her off. She admitted freely that Obama is embarrassing her, and that as the returns came in she was embarrassed for him, but in the days following she’s become embarrassed by him.
I think this is very important, the fact that liberals (those not in office) may be ashamed of him. The war for the American voter’s mind will be fought on the battlefield of emotions like this, not reason or logic. Just my two cents.
Sadly true. A society raised on government union schools, entitlements, PBS and feminist/queer activism is now at the polls.
Obamacare forced in just before that.
Since then what besides CIC blunders?
The American President promises to shut down the American Economy to make the Chinese feel good.
This whole thing is a sham. He used this to push his own domestic policy. He doesn’t care what the Chinese do. It had nothing to do with the Chinese.
He wants to be secretary general of the UN.
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.