Hillary embraces Obama’s green agenda
by John Myers
“There is no way that we can predict the weather six months ahead beyond giving the seasonal average.” ― Stephen Hawking, “Black Holes and Baby Universes.”
Never mind that 18 months ago prominent American leaders were saying that ISIS was the greatest threat to Western civilization.
So certain is President Barack Obama of the climate change threat that his administration made a first installment on a $3 billion climate change pledge on March 8. The remaining $2.5 billion promised will be paid by the Obama administration at a later date.
The $500 million payment to the Green Climate Fund was seen as critical to re-establishing international confidence that President Barack Obama could deliver on climate change promises. The President’s ability to meet his pledges made at the United Nations’ climate change conference in Paris in late 2015, where almost all of his emphasis was climate change and not the then-still-fresh Paris massacre at the hands of ISIS that had occurred a few streets away.
Obama has spent weeks discussing climate initiatives. Some were nixed by the Supreme Court which placed a stay last month on the centerpiece of Obama’s climate plan to cut emissions from power plants until circuit court reviews and Supreme Court appeals are exhausted.
Obama couldn’t care less what the high court says if it opposes his policies. Obama’s priority is his future legacy which he hopes will match his achievements to those of men like Martin Luther King Jr.
Democrats and hypocrites
For its April 2016 issue, The Atlantic has a cover with a photo of Obama on it. It mostly discusses his foreign and military policy actions of 2014 as if he were the military master. Also in The Atlantic article is an admission from two years ago that Obama was reluctant to use the military in Syria and that reluctance earned him the ire of the Pentagon.
For some foreign-policy experts, even within his own administration, Obama’s about-face on enforcing the Syrian red line on chemical weapons was a dispiriting moment in which he displayed irresolution and naïveté, and did lasting damage to America’s standing in the world.
“Once the commander in chief draws that red line,” Leon Panetta, who served as CIA director and then as secretary of defense in Obama’s first term, told The Atlantic, “then I think the credibility of the commander in chief and this nation is at stake if he doesn’t enforce it.” Right after Obama’s reversal, Hillary Clinton said privately, “If you say you’re going to strike, you have to strike. There’s no choice.”
Ah, yes, Hillary could easily be as bad as or even a worse than Obama. She and her egotistical husband have an abysmal economic plan, a dreadful energy play and a costly and dreadful environmental scheme. And Clinton is being driven to the left by a serious challenge from a democratic socialist in Bernie Sanders.
There is no better evidence of Clinton’s lurch to the left and unflappable support for the “green” agenda than her own campaign website. There her stated goals are “designed to deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference last December — without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation” and to create an ultra-green planet. In many ways Hillary is loyal to the leadership not of husband Bill, but instead to Obama and his green agenda, where over-the-top funding is doled out for technologies like life-time batteries and solar energy which currently are far from feasible.
Clinton brags at her current site that she will:
•Create good-paying jobs by making the United States the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.
•Set national goals to have 500 million solar panels installed; generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America; cut energy waste in homes, schools, and hospitals by a third; and reduce American oil consumption by a third.
•Lead the world in the fight against climate change by bringing greenhouse gas emissions to 30 percent below what they were in 2005 within the next decade—and keep going.”
In November Clinton summed up her goal for a cleaner world:
Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time — and Hillary Clinton has a plan to tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy.
Tops the list
Please forgive me, but of all I’ve seen from those pushing a green agenda, this is the most shocking. It is from March 15, 2016, Washington Times titled: Skewed justice – Obama lawyers would deny free speech to climate skeptics.
The Times writes:
Scientists don’t use the term “consensus,” despite the regular use of the term by politicians who promote government-mandated action to stop alleged human-caused climate change. The scientific method has little space for opinion, and no room at all for the democratic process. Yet it’s that “consensus” that has U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch investigating whether the Justice Department can and should sue scientists and others who question the human-caused climate change assumptions. Last week, Ms. Lynch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she has discussed the potential for bringing civil action against those who question human-caused climate change science, who include esteemed scientists — Nobel laureates among them.
My wife would probably tell you I’m a short ways from normal but we are all in a lot of trouble when it’s the president and his top law enforcement official determining that global warming is a fact and any with dissenting opinions are subject to incarceration. I’m not 100 percent sold on Trump, but I can see Clinton locking people up before Trump does.