0 Items  Total: $0.00

Obama vs. Trump

Obama vs. Trump

July 17th, 2017 // 4:07 pm @

The Reality of the Paris Climate Agreement—What it Really Means

What’s Actually Being Said

When President Obama spoke of climate change as America’s biggest challenge, and then touted what he called American “leadership” in the 2015 Paris global climate agreement, a lot of conservatives were confused. They wondered if Obama truly considered climate change a more dangerous threat than ISIS, Al Qaeda, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc. “Really?” they wondered. “How can he possibly believe that?”

Likewise, when president Trump pulled the United States out of the global climate accord, many conservatives were surprised by the extreme media reaction. “Don’t media members know that while nearly all nations in the world signed on to the agreement, funding it was put mostly on the backs of American taxpayers? We’re already deeply in debt and financially strapped. Why would the media support that?”

In reality, this is all a simple misunderstanding. Most Americans don’t know the hidden “code” that guided President Obama, the mainstream media, and many others who support the agreement. Only those who know the code realize what is actually happening. Everyone else is left to wonder. In fact, the large majority of Americans on the Left don’t know the code either—instead they assume that Obama’s climate agenda was driven by pure environmental concerns.

What is the code? Put simply, on one side we find leaders whose overarching objective is to maintain America’s national freedom and prosperity. On the other side the major objective is to build a truly global society—maintained by global-level governance. This is the true, but somewhat hidden, struggle of our time. Not surprisingly, these two grand strategies frequently come into conflict.

Responsibility or Power Grab

This is the code. How does it play out in everyday life? Put simply: on one side the justification for promoting American freedoms and prosperity is our shared national heritage, goals, and values. The justification for globalism, on the other hand, is that some things must be dealt with at the global level, and national governments have no business interfering with such concerns. If a nation supports policies that are “best handled globally,” it is “leading,” according to this view. If not, it isn’t.

Put another way, the only justification for national government is that it deals more effectively with certain issues than any local, provincial, or state government. Thus the need for a central power, or federal government. The American framers felt that two such issues existed: (1) national security, and (2) keeping peace between the states. This focus is foundational in the U.S. Constitution.

The framers saw no need for international or global level government, because no global threat existed that would require all nations to join together under one centralized command. The most that would be needed, the framers believed, was occasional treaties that allowed two or more nations to cooperate on shared goals. Such treaties could be discarded once the goals were met or the shared threats no longer existed.

Since government is “fire,” as George Washington put it, meaning that the power of government has throughout history been abused and/or turned against its own people, the power of any and every government must always be kept in check. Limited. “Smaller is better” sums up one-half of the founding American view of government. The other half was clearly expressed in the first 10 Federalist Papers: government should be strong and vigorous in doing what it is designed to do (national security and protection of inalienable rights), and limited from doing anything else. More than one of the framers expressed the key idea that our government must be “shackled” and “bound” to its limits by the “chains” of the U.S. Constitution.

These are strong terms. Indeed, the founding generation couldn’t think of any stronger words. The framers knew firsthand the pain and suffering caused by government that doesn’t remain limited, and they wrote the Constitution accordingly. They bound and shackled the government to its basic limits. They did everything they could think of to keep it that way.

Today’s Danger

Those pressing for global governance today know that only a truly global threat will create mass support for their worldwide agenda. An alien invasion would clearly accomplish this objective. Since no such threat confronts us, they seek the next best thing—a truly global environmental threat, one that endangers human survival, our very existence. If such a threat is accepted by the masses, the move to global governance will be certain.

This is the current appeal of environmental collapse as “the great global menace.” Note that loving the environment, and wanting to nurture and protect it, is not the same as pushing the belief that worldwide environmental breakdown and even collapse are inevitable (or even imminent). The first (love and protection of nature) can and should be handled by individual nations, or even smaller governmental units working with private entities. The second (global environmental collapse) can only be achieved by global-level controls that are enforced—ultimately by military action if necessary.

This is the code. Those who are pushing for global governance want concern for a global environmental threat to spread and grow—because it is the strongest idea that supports their political agenda. When politicians or the media say that the U.S. must “lead” on the environment, they are calling for global governmental powers to be established. When they say the U.S. is caving on its values in leaving the Paris climate agreement, they want the masses to hear that conservatives hate the environment, but what they really mean is that such a move is against globalism. That’s the one thing globalists can’t abide. This is their litmus test:

You can be Republican or Democrat, white collar or blue collar, religious or not, short or tall or happy or sad, but you can’t be against globalism and still represent the power elites. Such is heresy, pure and simple. It must be resisted at all costs. Globalism is the future.

This is the view of the power elites: in finance, media, academia, the sprawling federal bureaucracies, and top centers of the governing-industrial-lobbying establishment.

But the truth is different than the media reports. Specifically:

-Most conservatives care deeply about the environment.

-Most conservatives are against global governance.

-The Paris climate agreement does almost nothing to actually help the environment. (If the goal were truly environmental, the details of the agreement would be different.)

-The Paris climate agreement greatly promotes global governance. This is the real goal.

Sides and Purposes

Only those who understand “the code” actually understand current events. This applies to more than the Paris agreement, to be sure. For example, consider how globalist-leaning federal judges frequently insert the global agenda into decisions in ways that directly undermine the United States and even the Constitution. The goal is to replace the Constitution with global precedents and borderless jurisprudence, bit by bit.

Or consider how the pursuit of globalism impacts energy policy: oil pipelines from Canada create more energy independence in North America, thus reducing one of the major incentives of the U.S. to pursue globalism. Such pipelines should therefore be avoided at all costs, using any means necessary, according to globalists. The same globalist values governed Obama administration relationships with oil-rich nations in the Middle East.

Likewise, weaker borders, not stronger, are necessary for the shift to global governance; any strengthening of immigration controls is viewed by elites as a major setback. An actual wall between nations is considered downright medieval. Even “savage.” It goes directly in the opposite direction as global governance. So does anything that weakens Planned Parenthood and free access to “planet-saving” abortions, or any policy that slows gun control in the U.S. from matching European levels. The push is consistently global.

Moreover, the Iran nuclear deal strengthened the institutions and powers of globalism (while tending to decrease long-term U.S. unilateralism), and a strong relationship with Israel was considered by the Obama administration to damage the overall global agenda because Netanyahu is frequently a holdout against globalism. Mottos such as “the American Worker” or “Make America great again” are anathema to everything the globalists seek. There are many other examples.

Americans who understand “the code” of the elites will know what is going on in U.S. policy, even when others are confused by what is really happening. They will also understand the urgency and vehemence of elites and the elite-run mainstream media in opposing anything and everything that puts American interests before the ultimate goal of global governance.

The louder the media protests, and the more strident its voice, the better the fight is going against anti-American elite globalism. And make no mistake: the push for global governance is anti-freedom, anti-Constitution, anti-Biblical morality, and anti-family. The battle is real, and it is happening right now.

Share and Enjoy:
  • email
  • Print
  • PDF
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Category : Blog &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Foreign Affairs &Government

6 Comments → “Obama vs. Trump”


  1. James Garcia

    1 week ago

    Great article! Thank you for your intuitive thinking and your hunger for truth! I pray you always continue to speak your mind. Your voice is much needed in this world of mass confusion and false narratives. We live in strange times, where good seems to appear bad, and bad has a stranglehold on truth. For those of us who have and continue to read the Holy Bible, we understand that this is expected, for awhile.

    Hopefully, more people will read your articles and books, and get a better view or understanding of issues that are occuring.

    May GOD bless you and your family. May HE continue to bless you with your intellect, faith, and strive for educating others.
    Sincerely,
    James Garcia


  2. Eric Travis

    1 week ago

    For arguments sake, I would like to hear your view on the potential outcome of a global governance being designed with the same values and principles (including the checks and balances) as the American framers had when designing the constitution. Is it even possible? And what would it look like?


  3. Ben Muhlestein

    1 week ago

    Dr. DeMille,

    Thank you so much for the article, and all other previous articles! I thank you as well for all of your mentoring when I was at GWU (of which I graduated last year with my Masters). Again, I express heartfelt thanks for your vision of GWU and placing me on the path to studying the great classics. I truly will forever be in your debt.

    Sincerely,

    Ben Muhlestein


  4. Oliver DeMille

    1 week ago

    Eric, Good thought. The starting place would be the Law of Economy: “All powers delegated [by the people] to government must be entrusted to the lowest level of government that can effectively accomplish the desired goal; nations that adhere to this principle are consistently strong, vigorous, and vibrant.” More details on this are found in chapter 11 of my book We Hold These Truths to Be Self Evident. In other words, because government is “fire,” as Washington put it, all government powers should be used at the lowest level that can effectively do what is needed. So a global government would only be necessary if there were a truly global threat to inalienable rights. That said, if such a government were needed, separations of powers, checks and balances, and all the other “auxiliary precautions” (as the founders called them in The Federalist) would of course be important–even vital. I’ve spent a lot of time over the years looking at possible different global government structures (always with the understanding that without a truly global need such government would always become corrupt and unwieldy). See the book We Hold These Truths to Be Self Evident for the other things that would need to inserted into such a government.


  5. Elaine Mallios

    1 week ago

    Mr. DeMille,
    Thank goodness you have it right. In some other articles of yours I was concerned that you did not understand the depth of the propaganda. But you are well read and I do believe you are right.


  6. Oliver DeMille

    1 week ago

    Ben, Thanks for your note! Great to hear from you. Keep changing the world.


Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge

Subscribe Via RSS & Email

Click the icon on the left to subscribe in an RSS reader, or have new articles delivered to your inbox by entering your email address: