When President Barack Obama spoke at the COP 26 climate summit last week, he made a statement that I don’t think he intends to make. But when he made this statement, he proved everything we already know, first the climate change argument, and secondly the hypocrisy of liberalism. Before we understand the exact meaning of the statement, we must remember which school the former president came from.
It seems that everything about liberalism is related to two things: force and its direct result is hypocrisy. Whether it’s taxation, speech, or any of the other 100 different ways it tries to control your life, the inherent requirements of the left-wing implementation of its grand ideological pursuits are always compulsory. No tax? strength. Don’t want to buy an electric car? strength. Don’t want to believe that men can become women? strength. As we have seen recently, decide that you do not want to be vaccinated? strength.
In the past few years, the combination of liberalism and viral progressivism that have threatened our Republic has created a new chimeric ideological pandemic that has caused severe damage to our country and spread false beliefs. That is, the answer to countless questions is solved by the government is actually more government. When socialist practices lead to predictable and inevitable disasters, the answer is more socialism. If you look at the inner cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, or New York, you will find a long list of problems, from homelessness to rampant crime to cold-blooded murder, almost entirely attributable to liberals—have Socialist policy codified into law. What is the answer that the progressive left says? do you know! More governments. More socialism.
This does not mean that Conservative Party policies generally do not need to be enforced, or that these policies will not cause problems greater than the ones they intend to solve; it is just that Conservative Party policies rarely do these things. If the Conservative Party adheres to the principles of the Conservative Party more often, they will first seek to remove the obstacles and incentives that cause the problems we see, most of which can be traced back to the government. Liberal conservatives like me are often frustrated because we see the so-called “conservatives” who believe that the solution to the problems caused by socialist policies is more government, in the hands of these “conservatives”. What makes the conservatives involved in this action hypocrites is that they behave like the liberals they criticize.
This brings us back to the statement made by the former president at the 26th COP Climate Summit in Scotland on Monday.As always, Obama started with some flattering nonsense, which caused him to do something to my people. Big sin:
“Since we are here on the Emerald Island, let me quote the bard William Shakespeare, “What wound,” he wrote, “It was healed, but to a different degree.”
Yes, when the President spoke in Scotland, he hinted that they were in Ireland and quoted an Englishman. As a representative of the Wypipo tribe, I am very angry. If Donald Trump made the same comment, the media would laugh at him for weeks. If Donald Trump made the same mistakes in Honduras, Guatemala, and Gabriel Iglesias, the media would label him racist.
But it was what Obama said later that caught my attention. When discussing how to deal with “fairness” in climate policy, Obama has to say so:
“I can give up many of my current lifestyles for the benefit of the planet, because I have a lot of surplus. Many people don’t have that mat. So this means that any worthwhile climate plan must take these inequalities into account.”
This leaves me with only one question: what is stopping you?
If you think climate change is as great as the threat you keep teaching us, then why don’t you voluntarily change your life to deal with it? What action does the government need to take to implement this change? I sit at home with a solar reflective roof, heated and cooled by the most efficient HVAC system (through the new R8 pipe), 100% powered by solar energy, driving an electric car, powered by-you guessed it-solar charging power , And only use energy-saving appliances, you are eligible to ask the government to supervise me, and of course you can do more on your own-the government does not use force?
Obama not only said that he could give up more; he said that even if he did, he would still have “a lot left.” Why? Once again, if climate change poses such a serious threat to our survival and action must be taken immediately, why do you only give up some? Why don’t you give up all this? Why not take all available actions to combat climate change? Why does Obama think he can state so openly and frankly that he just does nothing, but waits for others to tell him what to do when he is there, and demand action? Could it be that the phrase “I have given up everything to help achieve climate change goals” or even “This is my immediate action to help combat climate change” instead of “Well, someone does not” fits his agenda better? ? Haven’t let me do anything yet. “Is the only motive for the leftist action at the end of the gun?
[As an aside, for someone who is extremely worried about climate change and the resulting rises in ocean levels, it certainly didn’t stop Obama from buying an oceanfront, 11 Million Dollar, 6900 square foot home in 2019. With the climate emergency ahead of us as imminent as we are told, it should be underwater any day now.]
Of course, we have already introduced that they can only execute their agenda by force, but the second part of the foundation of all liberal ideologies: hypocrisy. When you consider every benchmark of liberalism, it always has to start with force and always leads to the exposure of hypocrisy. think about it. Let’s take tax as an example. Many liberal billionaires say they can pay more taxes. Many wealthy Democratic politicians say they want to pay more. Well, then do it. Do they think the government will not accept it? Is there any law on the account books that states that they cannot open the checkbook and write checks to the U.S. Treasury Department? Do not? Can it be assumed that the only reason they did not do this was that they were not forced to do so? Do you bet that each of them bears all the maximum deductions and write-offs every year? Force meets hypocrisy.
What about freedom of speech? Of course, the left likes freedom of speech, right?Um, just not That speech.Instead of That Tone. And only if you have a specific ethnic background or a specific gender. But if you have a specific political background, you won’t. They think it should be a crime to offend someone with so-called hate speech (which they can define), but only do so when someone speaks it out. They want to force people to speak in a certain way, but only allow specific people to break these rules, and the list of these specific people is a constantly changing list that depends on political expediency. Force and hypocrisy.
Kavanaugh should be removed from the Supreme Court (compulsory) for alleged violence against women. Keith Ellison? Yes, he is cool. (hypocritical.)
The list goes on. What Obama did was just to prove that the only action the left was willing to take was under the order of the government and under the threat of force. Even so, they might cut a cute little exemption and create a kind of hypocrite. No one in socialism regards himself as a “worker”. They all imagine themselves as a great social architect, and they will do the best for other civilians with endless kindness. Only when they realize that they must also live under the rules they make, will they seek ways to create immunity for themselves, because their kindness has won it. Obama’s words are no exception. He wants to plan. He wants to discuss. He wants to be competent. But when sustainable rubber hits the road, he hardly intends to commit, let alone participate in any meaningful changes in his life.
But, like the pope’s hat and the defecation location of the woodland bear, this is a foregone conclusion.
