Here are the points with which we would leave our readers:
We have shown that, indeed, the climate change crusade is motivated by removing capitalism from the world order of power. Without the freedoms required for capitalism to thrive, one is left with the various forms of socialism embraced by totalitarian governments throughout history.
As much as we respect the accomplishments of large oil companies, we have described how misguided they are to have undertaken their own Paris “initiative”. The action of these companies is contrary to shareholder interests. The company executives involved are naive — and probably too vulnerable to elite European peer pressure — to believe they are promoting the use of natural gas by supporting the Paris Accord. In giving away shareholder value they received not one honest iota of support for shareholder value — unless they hope to have a social advantage in dealing with government leasing or purchasing officials. Do they not realize that in a socialized world their companies would be the first to be expropriated, a la Hugo Chavez, a la Argentina, etc.
As the videos below indicate, little is to be gained by massive redistribution of wealth from our country’s utility ratepayers and taxpayers to undeveloped countries. Nothing is to be gained by allowing massive creation of new coal fired (not necessarily ‘clean coal technology like that used in the U.S.) plants in China, India and even Europe. Much is to be wasted by collecting billions and distributing it via a new world order bureaucracy to corrupt countries via an undefined fiscal process.
Climate change fans talk about the several million alternate energy jobs in the United States. They fail to mention that those climate change justified jobs are created by crony capitalists. Their alternative energy schemes would not work without government imposed subsidies provided by ratepayers and taxpayers. Tesla’s Elon Musk is reportedly unhappy with the President’s Rose Garden pronouncement. Of course he is, since his space, solar, battery and car enterprises are all subsidized enterprises, not free enterprises. Truly, an army of crony capitalist crusaders, their suppliers, their customers and their political allies are all pressuring the Administration to take the “subsidy road most taken.”
The “beat generation” of the 60s rejected conformity and embraced non conformity. The world has come full circle. The same utopian, socialism, communism, anti-capitalism talking points that attracted the liberals of that day into non conformity, now attract today’s millennial generation of liberals into blind and obedient conformity ruled by what is deemed, by the loudest voices, to be “politically correct”.
* * *
Today’s non conformist is a conservative, critical thinker who dares to “travel the road less taken”. He respects tried and true constitutional principles, themselves based on fealty to the Creator. That road less taken is freedom, free enterprise and capitalism. To thrive in freedom and be protected from enemies of freedom, the United States has found the answer: economic strength derived from a robust, wealth producing, energy industry.
The anarchists, socialists and global warming crusaders also know that. They know that wealth comes ultimately from energy. They know how to follow the money. They have techniques designed to separate wealth producers from their money and transfer it to socialist power aggregators.
What can stop them? Critical thinking. Courage. Dedication. Initiative. Action.
That is why we applaud the actions of Secretary Zinke Wednesday and the President yesterday.
I was not expecting to hold my biology class in a public park last week. But then the chief of our college police department told me she could not protect me on campus. Protestors were searching cars for an unspecified individual—likely me—and her officers had been told to stand down, against her judgment, by the college president.
Racially charged, anarchic protests have engulfed Evergreen State College, a small, public liberal-arts institution where I have taught since 2003. In a widely disseminated video of the first recent protest on May 23, an angry mob of about 50 students disrupted my class, called me a racist, and demanded that I resign. My “racist” offense? I had challenged coercive segregation by race. Specifically, I had objected to a planned “Day of Absence” in which white people were asked to leave campus on April 12.