Burning Down The Climate Change Thicket

Here are some very constructive ideas about how to unlock and/or break the raft of stupid eco-fascist laws and regulations.  I especially like this one:

Obama joined Paris Climate Agreement by executive action. Trump exited by the same method. And Biden rejoined, again by executive action, right on January 20, 2021.

Trump could follow the previous method and just quit again. But my preferred suggestion would be to submit the Agreement to the Senate as a treaty. There is zero chance that the Senate would ratify. That would kill this thing much more securely than the other method.

And this would be the time to submit it, while the Stupid Party controls the Senate.

I know, the Paris Climate whatever is pretty much a paper tiger and waste of time.  Don’t care about it?  Then try this one:

“Regulations” are different from mere Executive Orders and actions, in that in order to be adopted they have gone through some complex and time-consuming processes prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act. The processes are designed to give these “regulations” some purported legitimacy and heft, to make them hard to undo, and to distract the gullible public from the fact that they have not gone through the only process that counts under the Constitution for valid legislative action, namely passage by both houses of Congress and signature by the President. The result of all the procedural rigamarole is that — if you buy the legitimacy of enactment of massive substantive regulations by administrative agencies in the first place — then the processes to eliminate the regulations are the same complex and time-consuming mess that it previously took to adopt them.

Do the Trump people really need to go through the same labyrinth to rescind these Rules? Here’s an approach I would take: First, announce that the legal opinion of the administration is that the Rules are invalid under Supreme Court precedent (i.e., the “major questions doctrine” of West Virginia v. EPA), and therefore they will not be enforced. Next, announce that permitting on power plant and other fossil fuel projects will take place as if these Rules did not exist. Finally, switch sides in the litigation, and join the red states and other plaintiffs seeking to have the Rules invalidated.

Here’s what I really, really like about this initiative:  it would also nullify, ipso facto, all the horrible regulations foisted on us by other Gummint agencies — such as the fucking ATF, for starters, and [add your favorite agency’s name here].

So when you follow the link above to see all the other Good Ideas, don’t just look at those suggestions as part of the destruction of the “climate change” myth, good as they are;  apply those principles to all areas of our life that the bureaucracy have (un-Constitutionally and illegally) affected over the years.

Roll on January 2025.

Half-Measures

Here’s one that had me cackling like the Bitch Herself:

Kamala Harris Claims, Without Evidence, that Trump Will Take Away Black Men’s 2nd Amendment Rights

…as opposed to what she wants to do — and has stated publicly that she wants to do it — which is to take away everybody’s 2nd Amendment Rights.

Her polls must have been telling her that she has no support among Black men that she has to resort to this transparent ploy — not that she deserves support, from anyone.

I always thought that the Democrats had plumbed the bottom of the barrel with the inept and inexperienced Barack Obama as their presidential nominee;  but now I see that compared to Heels-Up Harris, he was actually in the bottom third.

Muzzling Free Speech

And speaking of people who want to attack our First Amendment, we show some foreign interference (and no, it ain’t Russians):

BRITAIN was once the envy of the world for our legal right to free speech*. However, the tide has turned, and the government’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), set up in 2019 and instructed in March 2020 to combat the spread of ‘false coronavirus information online’, has helped the United States establish a dedicated team to crush what it sees as dissent.

In the name of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’, the CDU focused on coercing social media giants to execute ‘government-wide censorship efforts’. It has now exported its blueprint to the US, despite the fact that America’s prized First Amendment specifically protects citizens’ right to express themselves freely.

*Of course, it’s a lot easier to understand this when you realize that for all its so-called “storied freedoms”, Britain has never had absolute freedom of speech, nor anything approaching it.

A duty-of-care principle was established in the UK in 1932, and it is this anti-harm legislation the British government used to demand censorship of social media content, since reinforced by the Online Safety Act passed in October 2023.

Needless to say, though, their foulness found fertile governmental soil Over Here:

In August 2021 the Biden White House hosted a team from the CDU. They taught the Biden-Harris National Security Council (NSC), an interagency policy committee (IPC), everything they knew about silencing government critics on social media.

Feel free to read the disgusting details, if you think you can stand it.

Me, I’m off to the range.

Our Northern Neighbor

Here’s an interesting story:

Canadian Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was booted from the House of Commons for the day on Tuesday after a heated exchange where he refused the House Speaker’s request that he remove from the record his comment calling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a “wacko” and “extremist.”

So much for that “parliamentary privilege” thing in Fidel Trudeau’s Canukistan, eh?

Firstly, under parliamentary privilege, the House Speaker can only “deplore” or “censure” scurrilous language — expulsion for expressing an opinion is strictly disallowed in a parliamentary setting — and secondly, even without parliamentary rule, it’s an abridgement of the politician’s freedom of speech.  (I know, I know:  foolish Kim for believing that such things still exist.)

I guess none of that applies anymore in Castro Country.

Conundrum

The old saying goes, “Those who choose security over freedom deserve neither.”

And yet… you have a situation like this one:

The man who transformed El Salvador from one of the most dangerous countries in the world to one of the safest, President Nayib Bukele, is despised by liberals.

When he won reelection in a landslide, liberal media outlets ran headlines stating that democracy had ended in El Salvador and that the country had become a one-party state. However, El Salvador is not Cuba.

Bukele did not eradicate opposition parties, nor did he imprison them or seize control of the press. Instead, he delivered on his promises. He made the country safe by locking up criminals.

And how did he do this?

In 2022, after a gang war resulted in the deaths of 87 people over a period of just three days, Bukele took action against crime. He constructed the country’s largest prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo or CECOT), with a capacity for 40,000 gang members. And he began filling it.

Human rights groups, who live in safe, wealthy Western nations, have criticized Bukele for violations of the rights of suspects.

But the logic is flawless. Only gang members have gang tattoos. If anyone else gets a gang tattoo, they will be killed by the gang. The same is true for tattoo artists.

They would be killed for giving gang tattoos to non-gang members. Additionally, part of the initiation to joining a gang is to commit a serious crime, often murder. Once they become a member, their full-time job is to commit crimes. So, logically, anyone with a gang tattoo is a gang member and has committed crimes.

If this makes one think, “That sounds like the foul MS-13 gang”, then one would be correct.

I have often thought about doing this right here in the U.S. of A., as whole areas of the country have become terrorized by gangs like MS-13.  And as the gang members proudly wear their clan tattoo, why not just arrest them as self-confessed criminals?

Because that’s wrong — basically, it’s un-Constitutional, and on more than one level.  And here’s how it was done in El Salvador:

Bukele decided to let logic prevail, arrest the gang members, and put them in prison. He was more concerned about the rights of street vendors, business owners, school children, working people, and ordinary citizens than he was about the rights of violent criminals.

The state of emergency he declared in 2022, and has renewed several times since, suspends the constitutional rights of the gang members and bypasses the corrupt courts and justice system, which had allowed the criminals to reign for decades. Since then, 75,000 gang members have been arrested, and 7,000 have been released.

Believe me, there’s a lot to be said in support about measures like those of Nayib Bukele.  After all:

Bukele claimed that his country went 365 days without a murder. And while the exact number has been called into question, it is an indisputable fact that the country now has the lowest murder rate it has seen in 30 years, plummeting by 70%, and now stands at only 2.4 per 100,000 in 2023, making it the second lowest in the Americas, just behind Canada.

Okay, maybe that worked in El Salvador, which started off being a shithole country, and just dug itself a deeper one over decades of corruption and your standard Third-World degeneracy.  Desperate measures were called for.

But the U.S. has never been a shithole country, in no small part because of the protections that our Constitution affords everybody — and not just non-gang members, either.

I am profoundly disturbed by the tone of articles such as the one I’ve linked to and quoted from in this post.  Of course I can see the benefits of actions like that of Bukele.

But I can also see how that kind of thing can be turned around and used against, oh, people like MAGA supporters or, for that matter, gun owners.

And to quote a wise man (not a politician, but a playwright), who saw where this could lead:

“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

— Robert Bolt, A Man For All Seasons