The New Yorker has been the home of elite thinking for decades.  So it’s no surprise that you see pieces like this.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/congress-moves-to-sabotage-the-paris-climate-summit

The attitude of the elites seems to be that the President is a king who can decree and it’s law.  Unfortunately for elite sensibilities we live in a Republic where we the people elect representatives to keep an eye on our interests and elect new ones when we the people feel that out interest are being damaged.

Now the president can say whatever he wants at COP21.  The fact is that the things he proposes will have drastic economic effects which lead to things like this:

Even as he spoke, congressional Republicans were doing their best to undermine him. That same day, the House approved two resolutions aimed at blocking regulations to curb U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. The first would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing rules aimed at cutting emissions from new power plants; the second would prevent the agency from enforcing rules targeted at existing power plants. Together, these rules are known as the Clean Power Plan, and they are crucial to the Americans’ negotiating position in Paris. (The Clean Power Plan is central to the United States’ pledge, made in advance of the summit, to cut its emissions by twenty-six per cent.) The House votes, which followed Senate approval of similar resolutions back in November, were, at least according to some members, explicitly aimed at subverting the talks. Lawmakers want to “send a message to the climate conference in Paris that in America, there’s serious disagreement with the policies of this president,” Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican, explained.

I don’t think that a representative from Kentucky  where coal is a HUGE business is going to support the destruction of his state’s major industry.  At least not if he wants to remain in office.  Of course the House votes and the Senate votes are the result of what the President has Already done.

The fact is that the votes demonstrate just how far the president has gone in overreaching his executive authority.  The initiative for a move to change emission rules of this magnitude should come from legislation, not arbitrary executive action.

Arbitrary executive action seems to be what the elites want.  The article bemoans the fact that the President can’t get any agreement ratified by the Senate.  Flyover land to the New Yorker, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

Meanwhile, the impossibility of getting an agreement ratified by the U.S. Senate puts yet another constraint on negotiations. While many countries are pushing for a legally binding treaty, the Obama Administration is insisting on a sort of legal chimera—partly binding, partly not—so that, if there is a pact, it won’t require Senate approval. (The Washington Post has a good rundown on this particular problem.)

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. It’s done that way to prevent a President from committing the country to actions without the consultation and review of the States and the people.  After all the people are going to be living with the costs and consequences  of any agreement.  They are supposed to have a voice.

The article concludes with a typical logical fallacy by showing a bunch of tweets from the Republican Presidential candidates to judges apparently from the climate crew and having them score the tweets.  Michael Mann says a typical comment.

That Republicans would try to undercut the Administration’s efforts to do something—anything—to reduce carbon emissions is no surprise. Willful ignorance about climate change has become a point of pride among elected officials in the G.O.P. Recently, the Associated Press asked a panel of eight scientists to assess the accuracy of Presidential candidates’ tweets on climate change using a scale of zero to a hundred. (The tweets were shown to the scientists without the candidates’ names, to guard against bias.) All nine of the Republican candidates graded got failing scores. Donald Trump, for instance, received a fifteen, while Ben Carson got a thirteen and Ted Cruz a six. “This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner,” Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University, who served as one of the judges, wrote of Cruz’s statements. “That sort of ignorance would be dangerous in a doorman, let alone a president.”

Taking solace in a “fact check” report that contains no facts and just the opinions from people who have a vested interest in the climate scam is typical of people who themselves would rather not address the real issues.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3e946f29fa534a0b9c1d064b16e06b61/ap-fact-check-most-gop-candidates-flunk-climate-science

The real issue, that the cloud people at the New Yorker and by and large the rest of the media is ignoring as hard as they can is that the Democrat Blue Model is causing great damage to the people of this country.  Our elites are caught in a bubble of their own making and their stuck in their mind traps. They’ve become unconcerned with the concerns of the rest of us or even their own long term survival. Because what happen out in the hinterlands does have an impact in the suburbs od Washington and New York.

The cloud people don’t understand that when they say that global warming is the greatest threat, we the people know that what they really mean is “you peasants will be denied the opportunity to grow and live your lives as free people.”  We understand that the goal of the cloud people is total control over we stupid rubes who don’t have fancy parchments from Ivy Covered Snob Factories.  We also know that if we let the cloud people continue run things that their cultish following of fantasies will ruin everybody’s lives.  We also know that in a society that still is more or less free we can tell them to go to hell and make it stick.

For more on the dysfunctional economy click Here or on the tag below.