From Allen West

From Allen West

Since his first election, conservative pundits have claimed there are two Barack Obamas: the public and private, who are very different people. The things Obama believes privately he could never admit publicly because they’re too far radically left to possibly win an American election.

Things like America is too wealthy, consumes too great a percentage of the world’s resources and therefore needs to be brought down a few pegs, while at the same time other less-fortunate nations need to be brought up a few. And who needs to pay for their ascent? Why, America of course.

The same pundits held up clandestine deals like the “Paris Climate Accord” as prime examples of this core ideology and in a recent report titled, “Developing nations in Paris climate accord threaten to keep polluting unless they’re paid” the Washington Times has pulled the veil surrounding this massive, U.S.-financed global wealth redistribution scheme.

North Korea, meanwhile, has said its pollution will double by 2030 compared with 2000 levels — but only if the rest of the world writes a sizable check. Otherwise, its emissions will rise even further.

Peru says it can cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared with its “business as usual” projections, though that would be a net pollution increase of 22 percent and is contingent on billions of dollars in funding.

India, Iran, South Sudan, Niger, the Central African Republic, Cuba, Egypt, Paraguay and a host of other countries have similar demands: Pay up, or else they will have to keep polluting.

When President Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accord recently, his critics — including former President Barack Obama — said he was turning his back on the future and joining only Syria and Nicaragua in refusing to take part.

But for many that remain in the accord, the demands for cash are fueling the argument that the Paris agreement, at its core, is as much about redistributing international wealth as it is about saving the planet from climate change.

Supporters of the deal routinely point out that 193 countries have signed on. Although that is technically true, the vast majority of commitments offered in Paris would result in emissions increases or would require billions of dollars in funding — or, in many cases, both.

“Claiming that 193 countries signed on is a meaningless statement, which is likely why it’s made. The meaningful way to view it is that 193 countries agreed that the U.S. should harm itself and to gladly pay on Tuesday for the U.S. to harm itself today,” said Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a leading critic of the Paris pact.

“There’s a stark difference between agreeing to sign on to Paris and agreeing to do something, to undertake pain. In essence, they rented their signature for the promise of Paris-related wealth transfers. But for them to promise to do anything beyond take our money and impose the agenda, too, would really cost us.”

In other words, many of the nations who signed onto the agreement did so by agreeing to accept (our) money, but not much else. The Paris Accord isn’t about climate change; it’s a cover for paying underdeveloped nations exorbitant sums (to not pollute) but their commitments are completely meaningless.

Peru’s pollution reduction being contingent on receiving billions of dollars in funding is not unique. Neither is their ‘pay up or else’ position. The rub is that even if we do pay there’s no promise or requirement for them to reduce pollutants anyway!

The demands for cash in the Paris agreement are about redistributing international wealth from US tax payers to the rest of the world, an elitist’s polite way of saying blackmail.

Fortunately, we have a president who understands elite-speak.