When President Barack Obama spoke last week at the COP 26 Climate Summit he made a statement I don’t think he meant to make. However, in that statement, Obama proved what we all know: first the climate-change argument and secondly, liberal hypocrisy. We must first remember from which school the former president was educated before we can understand what that statement actually meant.
Liberalism seems to be all about force, and as a result, hypocrisy. Whether it is taxes, speech, or any of the other 100 different ways it seeks to control your life, the inherent requirement for the left’s enforcement mechanism of their grandiose ideological quest is always force. Don’t pay your taxes? Force. Don’t want to buy an electric car? Force. Don’t want to believe that a man can become a woman? Force. And as we have been seeing more recently, decide you don’t want to get vaccinated? Forcing.
Liberalism was an existing threat to our republic. It was then merged with viral progressivism to create a new ideological pandemic. This has created havoc in our country and spread the false belief of more government being the solution to all the problems. Socialistic policies can lead to inevitable and predictable disasters. Look around the inner-city neighborhoods of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. You will see a multitude of problems, including homelessness, crime, and cold-blooded deaths. It is all almost completely due to the liberal-socialist policy which has been codified in law. The progressive-left has the solution. We don’t know what to do! Increased government. More Socialism.
That doesn’t mean that Conservative policies don’t often require force to implement or that those policies don’t create problems bigger than those they intended to fix; it’s just that Conservative policies do those things less often. Conservatives should stick more to Conservative principles. They would work to get rid of the obstacles and triggers that create these problems. Most of the blame can be found back at the government. Libertarian-leaning conservatives, such as me, are so often frustrated because we watch so-called “conservatives” believe that the answer to the problems caused by socialist policies is simply more government, in the hands of these “conservatives.” What makes conservatives who engage in this action hypocrites is that they are acting like the very liberals they criticize.
The former president made the following statements Monday at the COP 26 Climate Summit, Scotland. Obama began with some pandering, which lead him to commit what I consider a grave cardinal sin.
“Since we’re in the Emerald Isles here, let me quote the bard, William Shakespeare, ‘What wound,’ he writes, ‘did ever heal but by degrees.’”
The President did speak in Scotland but he implied they were there and cited an Englishman. This is a remark that I make on behalf of the Tribe Wypipo. The press would have laughed for several weeks if Donald Trump had made the same comments. The press would have called Donald Trump a racist if he had made similar mistakes with Gabriel Iglesias and Honduras.
I was most interested in what Obama had to say later. In discussing how to approach “equity” in climate policy, Obama had to say this:
“I can afford to give up a lot of my current lifestyle to benefit the planet because I’ll still have a lot left over. A lot of folks don’t have that cushion. So that means that any climate plan worth salt has to take these inequities into account.”
I have one question.
If you think that climate change is as big of a threat as you constantly lecture us that it is, why don’t you just volunteer to make the changes in your life to combat it? How about government intervention to implement that change? Here I sit, in my home with a solar reflective roof, heated and cooled by the highest efficiency of HVAC systems (through new R8 ducting), powered 100% by solar, driving an electric car that is charged by – you guessed it – solar power, and using only energy-efficient appliances, and you have the stones to demand government regulate me, while you’re admittedly able to do more on your own – without the government using force?
Not only does Obama state that he can give up more; he states that even if he does he will still have a lot “left over.” And why? Why would you give up just a few if climate change is so serious threatening our existence that immediate action must be taken? It would be foolish to give up everything. Why wouldn’t you take the totality of the action available to you, with as much immediacy of which you were capable, to combat climate change? And why is it that Obama thinks he can state so openly and plainly that he just isn’t doing anything and is waiting for others to tell him what to do when he is there, demanding action? Would not the sentence, “I have given everything up to help contribute to climate change goals,” or even “Here is the immediate action I am taking to help combat climate change,” serve his agenda better than, “Welp, someone hasn’t made me do anything yet.” Is the left’s only motivation for an action done so at the end of a barrel of a 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.]
Sure, we’ve covered that they can only execute their agenda by force, but there was that second part of the basis for all liberal ideology: Hypocrisy. Every single standard of liberalism must start with force. This always leads to hypocrisy. It’s simple, just think about it. Let’s take taxes for instance. Liberal billionaires often claim that they have the ability to pay higher taxes. Numerous wealthy Democrat politicians state that they desire to pay higher taxes. You can do it. Do they think the government wouldn’t accept it? Do they think there are laws that say that they must not open their wallets and give a US Treasury check? It is not. So is it safe to assume that the only reason they haven’t is that they haven’t been forced to? You can bet that every one of them will take all the deductions and write offs each year. Hypocrisy meets force.
Free speech, what do you think? Leftists will love freedom speech. It’s just not. Thatspeech Not in ThatTone. It is only possible to say this if you are from a specific ethnic group or gender. But not if you’re of a particular political background. Their view is that it should be criminal to offend anyone with hate speech, which they have the right to define. However, it must only be said by certain individuals. The idea is to make people speak in a particular way but to limit the number of people who can break them. This list changes depending on politics. The Force and the Hypocrisy.
Kavanaugh needs to be expelled from the Supreme Court Force because of his allegations against violence against women. Keith Ellison Yeah, he’s cool. (Hypocrisy.
It goes on. Obama proved the fact that only the government can order left to act, even if it means they cut out some exemptions that make them hypocrites. No one in socialism sees themselves as “the worker.” They all envision themselves as some grand societal architect, and that they, in their endless benevolence, will do what is best for the rest of the plebes. Only when they realise that they will also have to follow the same rules, do they look for ways to make exemptions? Because their generosity has been well-deserved. Obama’s words are no different. He is keen to plan. He would like to have a discussion. He loves to pontificate. He wants to pontificate. But he doesn’t have the intention of making any significant changes in his life.
However, it was obvious that this conclusion had already been made, much like the hats worn by the Pope and the location for defecation of woodland bears.
About Post Author
