Oppose Obama's Bypassing of Senate With Climate Accord
There is no way that an assortment of extreme environmental
strictures will be approved by Congress.
There are too many skeptics who refuse to believe the gloom-and-doom forecasts
of radical environmentalists and their allies in the nation's mass media. This is especially true in the Senate, where
any treaty restricting energy production and subsequent economic activity would
have to win the approval of two thirds of its members. This is why the United States never submitted
to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a United Nations treaty that was designed to
restrict the emissions of "greenhouse gases," supposedly to prevent
man-made global warming.
But those who would bring America to its knees don't accept
defeat; they figure out some new way to reach their goals. The latest skirting
of the Constitution involves the use of what is termed "reflexive
law." Not a law as we have always known the term, reflexive law is created
when opponents of a sought-after goal are browbeaten into submission and forced
by propagandized public pressure to accept what they disagree with or actually
believe to be harmful.
Environmentalists have the ear of most journalists. Their
claims are accepted as fact and dutifully fed to the public. Anyone who
disagrees is subject to abuse of various kinds until he or she submits. In his August 27 article, "Reflexive
Law: How Sustainable Development Has Conned Us All," posted on his August
Forecast & Review website, Patrick Wood cites a recent New York Times
article that describes the process as "naming and shaming" opponents
into submission. The sought-after result would be what is termed "soft
law." Not a law in the usual sense, but a combination of pressure and inevitability
directed at those who don't approve of something. Occasionally, someone who
resists the demands for compliance with some governmental or organizational
rule is told that he'd better go along with it or far more onerous regulations
would be forthcoming.
According to "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of
Treaty" (New York Times, August 26), the article cited by Wood above, the
use of reflexive law is now being considered by the Obama administration in
place of a formal treaty. The plan calls for the president to issue Executive
Orders tying our nation to a global treaty addressing widely touted but
never-proved global warming. Demands for cutting carbon dioxide emissions, the
supposed cause of climate change (the new name for global warming), are
forthcoming - not as formal law but as reflexive law. The Times states,
"American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement - a
proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with
new voluntary pledges." The Times article quotes Jake Schmidt, a National
Resources Defense Council expert, who notes that promoters of new regulations
"are trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the
67-vote threshold" in the Senate.
It's easy to classify
this latest move toward cancelling sovereignty as patently outrageous and then
shrug one's shoulders at another bit of overreach by the enemies of
freedom. But, unlike so many other
outrages, this one involves a new process of skirting the Constitution. It's
not a single measure. If reflexive law
is allowed, then we have no Constitution, no rule of law.
Senators need to know
that there are citizens who will not stand for this completely unconstitutional
skirting of the document each has sworn to be guided by.
Please send a message to your senators in opposition to the
Obama administration's plan to use "reflexive law" to bypass the
Senate ratification process with a new climate accord.
Thanks. Your Friends at The John Birch Society
No comments:
Post a Comment