If you are a U.S. Senator or a Senate candidate, it pays to deny the science behind climate change, or at least to work against legislative action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That’s the conclusion drawn by a report released yesterday by Climate Action Network Europe.
Read the rest of the article here.
Comment: Money is the central issue in this article, not the bogus climate change crap peddled by the author. Although as I have written before, this bizarre belief these leftist have, especially the people who sourced this piece, ThinkProgress, George Soros and the foundations he funds, are not going to give up on this effort, even when the information continuously made public revealing this was a criminal conspiracy concocted by the UN and its eco-Nazi satellite groups and the money grubbing shills in academia.
Like all propaganda there is always some truth behind what is said and in this case it is the considerable amount of money being funneled into our election process from outside the United States. The truth of the matter is that the Democrats are receiving far more money from nefarious sources than any of these supposed “climate deniers.” However, we should be concerned with the whole issue and not to fall into the left verse right paradigm.
If we are going to remove the amount of outside influence from our election process we have to do it in a manner that will not harm the 1st Amendment as the McCain-Feingold Act did, and that method is repealing the 17th Amendment.
By repealing the 17th Amendment we diminish the ability of outside groups from interfering in at least senatorial campaigns to a large extent because the election process, direct or indirect, will greatly diffuse the power now held by each senator. Certainly, if a state chooses to continue the direct election method through the citizenry there is the likelihood that peddling can still exist; however, no more than it does today in US House races.
The better method would be to allow for one chamber of each state legislative body to elect their state’s representative to Congress. Clearly there would be many that would decry the fact that a given party would have greater representation. However power now held by the individual and the national party’s influence would be significantly diffused because the person would be beholden not to Washington but to their own state.
Another method would be for the Governor to nominate an individual to the state legislative body much like we do today with ambassadors and allow for a vote. The individual would truly be a representative of the state and its interests. Considering this last example, it could be said that the influence of outside special interest groups would be incredibly diminished or completely eliminated.
One last point, as I wrote at the start, these leftists aren’t going away. They have invested huge sums of money and time in the concoction of this climate change deception because this is their main attack method to achieve their ultimate goal of creating a central world government. This is what they are fighting for. Can we afford as US citizens the loss of our sovereignty to the UN, IMF or the global conglomerates who gaining more power everyday? The answer is no, but can we also trust the 100 men and women who sit in the US Senate and who fail to bear the responsibility for protecting the US Constitution? Again the answer is no.
So if we can’t trust them why then should we give them the power to approve treaties harmful to the America? We should not. We should take it back and restore the power to the right place the founders created in the states. And the first step in doing so is to repeal the 17th Amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment