Issues

Resources

Links

Front Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

The Theft of Outrage

By James L. Hirsen, J.D., Ph.D.


Outrage in our society is not dead. No, it's just been highjacked. Take any Clinton scandal to illustrate the point. The heist was as effortlessness as pulling a switch on a track. The public wrath could in no way be repressed. Instead, with assistance from the throngs of gleeful cohorts in the television and radio media, the anger was successfully diverted toward easier targets.

Sadly, the real outrage should concern matters that up to the present time have not been reported about at all or have received only a modicum of attention. What if an administration signed a treaty that would impact the social and economic fabric of our country for the next century? And suppose this same administration forged ahead with its plans, despite the fact that Congress had expressly passed legislation prohibiting the specific signing?

Well, it happened. The Clinton administration signed the Kyoto Agreement, flouting the express restrictions imposed by Congress. Would such a story merit broadcast coverage? Most Americans would believe so. Most television anchors did not.

Ignoring prominent scientists and economists, the Clinton administration trudged ahead and signed the "Global Redistribution of Wealth Treaty" at the recent eco-fab held in Buenos Aires. When and if the Kyoto Agreement is implemented, the United States will have to cut its emissions from the 1990 levels by about 7 percent over the next 10 to 15 years. With dubious science providing the basis, we will be forced to drastically cut our use of coal and oil, the energy foundations of our industrial society.

According to government estimates, the cost of fulfilling our obligations will be $397 billion in the year 2010 alone. Along with the devastating loss of about 2.5 million jobs, energy prices will soar. An additional sixty-six cents will be tacked on to the price of every gallon of gasoline, and power expenses will rise an estimated 80 percent. No doubt, this will have a paralyzing effect on our entire economy.

To make matters worse, sandwiched within the Climate Treaty is an item that has been on the UN's wish list for decades - global taxes. A framework has been proposed that will begin the process of transferring high technology and investment from established, developed nations to the underdeveloped countries of the world. For palatability's sake, pollution reduction has been used as a guise.

The arrangement would work as follows. A system would be devised whereby a carbon dioxide pollution "permit" would become a product that could be purchased. Permits would be bought and used in the form of pollution credits. These pollution credits would act as offsets against direct acts of pollution. In essence, companies deemed to be polluters would be able, or would most likely be forced, to buy the right to pollute. The U.S. could then escape burdensome emission limits imposed by the agreement by procuring credits from Third World nations.

The problem with this scenario is that it would result in U.S. consumers doling out even more money for oil, gasoline and electricity. Global agencies are hungrily anticipating the opportunity to skim a good part of the revenue that would be generated. Of course, if the system failed to produce the necessary amount of revenue, it could easily be converted to a simple global energy tax.

The Kyoto Agreement was executed despite the fact that more than 130 countries remained outside its scope, leaving countries such as India and China free to build any number of power plants, mine any amount of coal and dump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they so choose. Those Third World nations that were not ready to buy into the global warming myth were bought off in the usual manner. Their support was obtained by promising more aid in the form of another kind of green commodity - money.

What we have here is a seizure of sovereignty. The strengthening of international initiatives is occurring at the expense of U.S. concerns. The White House's snubbing of Congress is part of a long, consistent pattern of attempting to implement unratified treaties by using various questionable contrivances such as executive orders. Unapproved treaties are all too frequently used as a blueprint for budget requests, policy determinations and federal standards for state and local lobbying efforts. Clearly, this is not the way the branches of government are supposed to operate according to the Constitution. But representative government does not seem to factor into the current administration's policy equation.

Misplaced outrage is a function of a distorted reality. The American people must be informed of the serious and pervasive consequences of these kinds of unconstitutional efforts. Yes, outrage can be returned to its proper place, but it will only be delivered to its destination through the vehicle of truth.


Copyright © 1999 -
James L. Hirsen, J.D., Ph.D.

All Rights Reserved