Obama’s green agenda has become so critical to his climate legacy that during a joint news conference yesterday with French President Fraçois Hollande, Obama said the climate summit in Paris will be a “powerful rebuke” to terrorists. The summit, scheduled for next week and into December, has been rocked by the recent terror attacks in Paris as security has become a top concern among diplomats.
Critics also argue that Obama has become utterly tone death to America’s needs, as highlighted in a new poll of registered voters, which shows that 97 percent of voters do not consider climate change the most important threat facing America. Coming in at #1 was terrorism, followed by the economy and jobs.
Republicans, and some Democrats, have already rebuked Obama for making promises to other nations that require Congressional approval. They have also passed a bi-partisan veto-proof bill in the House that would set aside Obama’s onerous CO2 regulations, which most analysts agree will cause electricity prices to “increase 10 to 25 percent by the 2030s.” The House bill is currently being shackled by senate Democrats who are providing political cover for Obama’s expensive green agenda.
And while Obama spent much of last week traversing the globe gathering support for the upcoming climate talks, he spent most of his time taking swipes at Republicans who wanted to tighten security against terrorists who might try to insert themselves into the Syrian refugees. This latest poll is just one in a series that shows Americans simply aren’t buying into the global warming fearmongering. The Daily Caller also notes that it’s not “gaining traction with Americans despite increased efforts to tie global warming to extreme weather, public health concerns and national security.”
Yesterday’s bewildering comment by President Obama came during a news conference ostensibly geared toward the despicable terrorist attacks on November 13 in Paris, France. Obama said, “I think it is absolutely vital for every country, every leader, to send a signal that the viciousness of a handful of killers does not stop the world from doing vital business, and that Paris … is not going to be cowered by the violent, demented actions of a few.”
Critics on both sides of the aisle were shocked and dismayed that Obama did exactly what his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once intoned you should always do when a watershed moment arises: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Both the president and administration officials have been criticized for their belief that climate change is the most immediate threat to national security and that it is “on par with terrorism.” Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, who is running as a Democrat-Socialist, also said that climate change is the most immediate threat facing this country, doubling down even after the Paris terrorist attacks.
Nearly 150 heads of states are expected to gather in Paris, France, including Obama who plans to leave the conference Tuesday, while the conference continues on to at least Dec. 11. Experts agree the timing for the summit couldn’t be worse for this long-planned climate conference, especially in lieu of the latest terror attacks in Paris. Apparently Hollande and Obama are on the same page, with the French president saying, “I think there cannot be any better symbol or response but to hold the conference in Paris … with some 150 heads of state and government.”
Accordingly, security has been ramped up considerably against a backdrop of death, bloodshed, and an endless stream of new findings, with many people wondering why they simply didn’t postpone the meeting or hold it at the United Nations. The good news is that all rallies, protests, and concerts related to the event have also been banned, much to the chagrin of environmental activists, who believe that chanting and slogging around signs in the bitter cold is a productive use of time and energy.
One thing is not in dispute: analysts don’t believe a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions will avert the Earth’s temperature from rising, and any regulations would be expensive, onerous, and hurt low- to middle-income families. Climate treaty supporters also refuse to acknowledge that even if all U.N. members agree to binding CO2-reductions, the affect would be undetectable. The treaty, though, would be a way for the U.N. to take money from rich nations like the United States and give it to developing countries, a redistribution-of-wealth scheme that Obama is eager to adopt.