Opposing BFD China Climate Deal? Treason.

Filed in International by on November 12, 2014

For years Republicans have held China’s resistance to a carbon reduction treaty as a reason to oppose President Obama’s efforts to address the climate crisis here.  So, he cuts an amazing deal with China and what are Republicans  doing?  Opposing it.  This is nothing short of treason.

Once again, Obama has pulled a rabbit out of the hat and created another very positive BFD that will benefit all Americans  whether they deny or accept the settled science of climate change and the link to carbon.

These cretins have no shame nor conscience.  Their opposition to the deal the President is bringing home harms Americans because they want to harm Obama.  They want him and we Democrats to be able to claim no successes that benefit our society and in this case, the entire world.  They only care about winning politically, even if it means we, our children and future generations are harmed.  Literally, physically harmed.

From the dictionary- a definition of treason:

the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
“they were convicted of treason”
Harry Reid, gear up the Senate and get this done before our majority is no more.  Then, DNC, gear up to indict the Republican leadership for treason.   Is anybody home there at HQ to hear this and act?
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;


About the Author ()

Comments (48)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dana says:

    So, now opposing a policy of President Obama’s is treason?

    In 1998, when the Kyoto Accords were being negotiated, Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat, pushed a “sense of the Senate” resolution, asking President Clinton not to sign Kyoto in anything like its then-current form; that resolution passed unanimously, 95-0. Was that treason, in your mind?

    And, in the United States, treason has an official definition, specified in the Constitution:

    Article III, §3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    Mr Merriman wrote:

    Once again, Obama has pulled a rabbit out of the hat and created another very positive BFD that will benefit all Americans whether they deny or accept the settled science of climate change and the link to carbon.

    Oh, there are some coal miners in Kentucky and West Virginia, and some oil and natural gas workers across the land, who might not think that this agreement would benefit them. Senator McConnell won some eastern Kentucky coal region counties last Tuesday that he had never carried before, even in 2002 when he won 65% of the vote, because some people were concerned about the President’s policies and how they would impact coal mining. If it’s a choice between preventing a three inch rise in sea level in 72 years, or keeping your job, most people are going to choose keeping their jobs.

  2. Dana says:

    Mr Merriman wrote (or perhaps copied):

    Harry Reid, gear up the Senate and get this done before our majority is no more. Then, DNC, gear up to indict the Republican leadership for treason. Is anybody home there at HQ to hear this and act?

    Is the author calling on the Senate to pass bills of attainder here? Does the author believe that the DNC has the authority to indict anyone?

    Or, perhaps the author is calling on the Senate to ratify this agreement — which is very specifically not a treaty, because the President knew it could never be ratified — and I agree: submit it to the Senate for proper ratification, or rejection, as the Constitution envisions.

  3. Davy says:

    The crime of treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

    In Federalist No. 43, James Madison wrote: “As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.”

    So yeah, you are the type of person that the Constitutional Convention had in mind.

  4. stan merriman says:

    Harry Reid should pass a resolution affirming the China climate deal and commending our President for his success on behalf of the well being of Americans; it should be coupled with shutting Sen. Mary Landrieu down on her Keystone bill, corresponding to her runoff opponent’s House Keystone bill.

    The DNC should assemble the membership and pass a resolution commending the President for the China climate deal and perhaps hold a mock treason trial of Republican leadership for opposing and advocating the physical harm climate change will bring to their fellow citizens through their unconscionable sabotage of the President’s climate (EPA) policies.

  5. Unintended Consequences says:

    Treason? No, you need to look at why you have such a limited understanding of the opposition. I fully realized that you have no clue, about us, as to how the opposition sees this issue. Until your side understands how we understand and process the newest “scientific” theory, and you can put your politics down for a moment in order to understand us, you are doomed. Beating your head against a wall until you bloody yourself is called “winning” by my side. In the late 1970’s your side was crying about “global cooling”, now “global warming”, in a few years it will be “global cooling” again. We call it weather. We may be wrong, which in the end is more important, than if you are are wrong. Climate change is a people problem, not a science problem. When you figure out it’s about people, maybe your head won’t be so bloody.

  6. mouse says:

    Have you ever googled the properties of CO2? Ocean pH and CO2? Historic levels of Atmospheric CO2? Carbon dating?

  7. mouse says:

    If climate change is wrong and we lower the use of fossil fuels for renewable energy, our kids lives will be better. But the laws of physics aren’t known to be wrong and we know a lot more than we did in the 70’s.

  8. ben says:

    “Climate change is a people problem, not a science problem. When you figure out it’s about people, maybe your head won’t be so bloody.”

    what does that mean? are we going to people-away toxic gases coming out of power plants? Science proves global warming. People deny it. People also denied the earth was round…. or that is rotates around a sun…. or that solar eclipses were the moon and not an angry fire god. People are stupid. But i’d love an explanation.

    also… Dana, why do you call PP Mr Merriman? I dont read many other blogs. Is that the same as Stan Merriman? if so, why are they commenting with one name and posting with another?

  9. Dorian Gray says:

    I really, really hate to say it. I actually don’t want to say it, but it’s the truth.

    This post is fucking ridiculous nonsense. It’s no better than some Drudge post advocating for impeaching the president.

    Are climate change deniers disgusting partisan idiots? Yes. Do humans cause climate change by doing things that emit too much CO2? Yes. Should major initiatives be undertaken to combat climate change? Yes. Even if it may impact the economy? Yes, of course, because without the earth there is no economy…

    But then you go accusing people of Treason and it makes you sound like a mentally disturbed person or a fictional character on cable news. Cut it out and make an intelligent argument. This is fucking dumb.

  10. stan merriman says:

    Dorian, hyperbole yes, I admit to that to made an exaggerated point about their betrayal of ordinary fellow Americans. How then do you suggest the lame duck Dem Senate deal with this? And, the DNC?

  11. mouse says:

    Can we call it Ebolisis

  12. fightingbluehen says:

    So, here in the US we are reducing our CO2 emissions as we speak, and China could possibly put a cap on the increased output of their emissions in sixteen years from now..…..great deal!

  13. fightingbluehen says:

    I don’t think “treason” is the word you are looking for PP. I believe in cases where there is this particular kind of fervor on a subject, “heresy” or possibly “blasphemy”, would be the more appropriate term for you to use.

  14. Geezer says:

    China also agreed to produce 20% of its power by renewables. But don’t let the details get in the way of your wahmbulance call.

  15. Geezer says:

    @Stan: We realize that the rest of the world is moving on without us. Eventually the Republicans will notice.

    Unfortunately, even disaster is slow to move them to action, so we will all suffer from their ignorance first.

  16. mouse says:

    Are we safe from Ebola and Isis now

  17. tops116 says:

    Boy, I’m so old, I remember when progressives claimed that dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now it’s treason. My, what a difference a midterm shellacking makes.

    But hey, maybe this climate change thing is real. After all, it’s colder than it was in July. And that’s only happened every year for as long as civilization. But remember (and this is absolutely crucial), we must ignore that it hasn’t gotten warmer globally in the last 14 years, that Al Gore claimed seven years ago arctic ice would be gone two years ago, and that scientists’ projections about global warming were vastly inaccurate. I mean, otherwise, we’d have to recognize that climate change is a load of horse-s***. Oh wait, it is.

    Climate change is like magic; it can do anything liberals want it to, except exist. Thanks for the laughs, suckers.

  18. mouse says:

    Do you people understand basic science and physics or are they liberal biased too

  19. Dorian Gray says:

    Could somebody like Tops116 articulate the motive behing the “hoax” of climate change? That’s where the position breaks down. This idea that the world’s climate scholars and researchers have somehow all colluded and prepetrated this thing for some unknown reason that isn’t at all clear.

    See on the other side the motive is completely clear. The remedy for global warming cost people money. Hence they refuse to believe. That makes sense to me…. but the idea that scientists have a vested interest one way of the other makes zero sense.

  20. mouse says:

    The republican right has never stood for anything. They are only against things. Their positions and arguments are full of deception, dishonesty and misinfomration and covered with the racist visceral hate that drawls in the uneducated lower middle class that gets all their info from talk radio entertainers.

  21. Terry says:

    Dorian, I won’t justify Topps116 “hoax” claims, but because there are 2 sides to the climate change debate which generally fall along political lines, I have to be skeptical. As an Independent (centrist), I have a hard time believing political rhetoric; if the science could stand on it’s on without political influence, I’d be more inclined to trust it. Again, there are prominent scientist on each side of the debate.

    Additionally, I don’t see how your statement “The remedy for global warming cost people money” holds water; what about “global warming” can be fixed with money (specifically, tax dollars)?

  22. mouse says:

    Its good to be skeptical as this is a major tenant of the scientific method. However, there are not 2 sides to this. There are no peer reviewed studies, major scientific institutions or anything of the like presenting any evidence that CO2 won’t cause climate change. As in the good ole days of everyone in the office smoking ciggerettes, there are always a few “scientists” mostly on the payroll of polluters who say it ain’t so. Look into who is saying dumping giga tons of CO2 into the atmosphere won’t cause warming/climate change. There are no credible sources of this.

  23. Jason330 says:

    Terry, Don’t be an idiot. There only are “2 sides to the climate change debate” because the fossil fuel industries are wealthy enough to buy off a few scientists, and they are more than wealthy enough to buy off some legislators. You aren’t “centrist” – you are duped. If Republicans claimed that 2+2=8, the centrist position would not be that 2+2=6. That would be the stupid person’s position.

    I tend to like you, but comments like these really show you to be a outright dumbass. As clouded by your dumbass political ideology as anybody.

    Also – What Mouse said.

  24. Terry says:

    Did the earth go through heating and cooling cycles prior to the industrial revolution and the introduction of “fossil fuel industries”?

    CO2 is not a man-made phenomenon. It was here on earth before us humans and it will be here long after we’re gone.

  25. Jason330 says:

    The Republicans are at least getting paid to say that 2+2=8, you are getting bupkis. Dupe.

  26. Dorian Gray says:

    The proposed solutions to global climate change have significant ecomonic costs. I never said anything about tax dollars.. Carbon taxes, new technology (that job creators don’t want to pay for…) you get the idea. Or maybe you don’t…

    Especially with the lame idea that CO2 has always been here and humans have nothing to do with it. Yes, CO2 has always been around, but levels have increased exponentially since the industrial revolution… you know what. I’m tired of explaining it. It’s a fact. The argument is over. There’s no motive for anybody to create a hoax. The entire thing is fucking ridiculous.

  27. Terry says:

    Since you ignored it the first time:

    Did the earth go through heating and cooling cycles prior to the industrial revolution and the introduction of “fossil fuel industries”?

  28. Jason330 says:

    Dupe. There is no debate. There are only people on the take and dupes like yourself.

  29. mouse says:

    Wow, well I guess if you really don’t want to understand emperical science that conflicts with talk radio propaganda..

  30. Terry says:

    Gotcha. So in 4.5 Billion years, the Earth has only going through a warming cycle once – and it happened to correspond with the introduction of fossil fuels and the industrial revolution?

    Makes about a much sense at the fundamentalist Christians believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

  31. Jason330 says:

    Dupe, stop making yourself look so stupid. Your stock is plummeting. You don’t need to go back 6,000 years. You need only go back to 1998 to read the founding articles of your dupe-hood.

    Perhaps it is painful for you to consider the fact that you are DUPE of the American Petroleum Institute. I don’t care, it is painful for me to read your nonsense, so I’ll probably ban you for stupidity in a little bit.

    Carry on being an idiot and a dupe, for all I care. Just don’t do it here.

  32. mouse says:

    Google logical fallacies..

  33. Aint's Taking it Anymore says:

    Another blow smoke up your own ass discussion.

    The deal with China is laughably bad. It requires China to nothing more that it already does which, as we know, ain’t shit.

    Let’s all acknowledge that our esteemed leader has yet demonstrated his foreign policy ignorance. He, again, fucked up. But . . . .he got a deal. Thank God. He got a deal with China. Let the misguided celebrate . . . he got a deal.

  34. Terry says:

    And boom goes the dynamite… or in this case, the seismic cannons.

    Obama opens Eastern Seaboard to oil exploration:

    Enjoy that bread that Obama is feeding you while watching the circuses.

  35. Unintended Consequences says:

    So, Obama is saving the planet and AP’s story we are exploring for oil on the US east coast is “balanced”. When you throw the word DUPE around make sure it’s not yourself. And Carper is voting for Keystone, again its those damn republicans. I think the Democrat Party has seen the future and its all about moving to the right. Progressive Democrat what happened to that..the elections of 2014?

  36. Jason330 says:

    Obama disappoints – STOP THE PRESSES! Dupe, You know that doesn’t change the fact that you’ve been duped by the American Petroleum Institute and seem to be pretty happy about it. I know it hurts, this feeling of realization, but you’ll get over it.

  37. puck says:

    You know, drilling and burning more fossil fuels probably will improve the economic lives and standard of living of middle-aged people living now. That is a cynical and short-signted argument, but a very powerful one. The real problems begin when our children are middle-aged.

  38. jason330 says:

    These dupes really need to get a new hobby. There are plenty of sites that love entertaining the empty-headed, and programmed rantings of Dupes, BTW .

  39. mouse says:

    Exactly, we have created a non sustainable human society based on cheap dirty fossil fuel and we let our kids deal with the fallout when it runs out and pollutes the atmosphere beyond repair. We need ever increasing renewables at an ever increasing pace.

  40. fightingbluehen says:

    …at an ever increasing cost….to the poor and the middle class.

  41. Dave says:

    “Exactly, we have created a non sustainable human society based on cheap dirty fossil fuel ”

    …and are moving towards more renewable sources at the pace of all significant change – glacial. You know those few extra pounds you put on? You didn’t put them on overnight and you aren’t going to take them off overnight either. Electric vehicles do not mitigate the reliance on hydrocarbons and everybody doesn’t live in urban environments where biking, walking, and mass transit are viable alternatives.

    In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were
    • Coal 39%
    • Natural Gas 27%
    • Nuclear 19%
    • Hydropower 7%
    • Other Renewable 6%
    • Biomass 1.48%
    • Geothermal 0.41%
    • Solar 0.23%
    • Wind 4.13%
    • Petroleum 1%
    • Other Gases < 1%

    You want to lower/eliminate the percentage (67%) of fossil fuel? Feel free to engage in the exercise to change any percentage you want. Every source has it upside and downside. Solar takes land and fries birds. Wind kills birds and is not yet reliable enough. Nuclear is so scary to people, they don't even want to think about it. Hydropower? Let's talk about the pristine wilderness lost because of massive dams.

    We live on electricity. This site exists because of electricity. So, anyone have any viable solutions that can eliminate the need for dirty fossil fuel?

  42. Jason330 says:

    “Solar takes land and fries birds.”


    “Wind kills birds….”

    Super weak. That happened at one early wind power site, so now it is some wignut folklore.

    You’re “we can’t do enough, so we shouldn’t do anything” argument is wanting.

  43. mouse says:

    I think the term is disconfirmation bias

  44. mouse says:

    Solar is rising at 50% a year and wind at 25%. Thats a doubling rate of 1.5 to 3 years for these renewables. Glacial??? The polluting energy monopoly mafia is already criying about having to buy back power from people using solar. Its only a matter of time before your dirty energy mafia friends who destroy mountains, kill streams, alter the climate, harm public heath and fund terrorists are put out of business. The next generation sees the obvious, so unless you people can successfully destroy education, you can shill all you want for a lost lost despotic cause!!!!!!!!!

  45. Dave says:

    “Super weak. That happened at one early wind power site,”

    Oh BS. In fact, B double S. Bird kills happens at every site. Every site. But the point is, there is a price to pay for every viable alternative. Solar is rising at significant rates, yet it has not yet made a discernible difference in the percentage of our electricity that is obtained from fossil fuels. Perhaps it will in the future. Just for the record, I have a 5.1KW solar system on my house. Do you? If not what’s your excuse for contributing to the dirty energy mafia friends who destroy mountains, kill streams, alter the climate, harm public heath and fund terrorists? What’s your car running on, milk? What are you doing to solve the problem besides posting here?

    In order for systems like solar to achieve critical mass, there needs to be widespread adoption. Has anyone else here bitten the bullet? The simple fact is our need/desire electricity holds us in thrall to fossil fuels unless we reduce our need and desire or bite the bullet for viable alternatives. Wind blows, but not all the time. The sun shines, but not all the time. If you are willing to post here only during daylight or when the wind blows, we can achieve your desired state. Unless of course, you are willing to discuss nuclear power, which most people are not.

    Your error is in thinking that I am fan of fossil fuel, or that I support the industry when in fact, what I am is a realist. Come back and talk to me when your solar system is up and running or at least when you no longer buy plastic bottles of water, which I bet you have a whole case of in your house.

  46. mouse says:

    I just pulled a case of empty water bottles out from under the seats of my gas powered vehicles. I have a 15 year old kid..Live in the woods. I need to do better.

  47. pandora says:

    I hate the “look at what I do” argument, mainly because people do what they can. Many people are planning to go solar, or buy an electric/hybrid car when the time comes to buy a new one.

    It’s a silly argument. Do you use public transportation? If it doesn’t exist where you live, then why live there? Do you walk/bike to the store for groceries? No? Then you should move. See how ridiculous this is?

    You have solar panels. That’s really great. We are meeting with a rep next week to discuss installing them (up until now our pitched, slate roof presented a problem. We’ll find out if that has changed.). We walk/bike to the Acme, Walgreens, restaurants, liquor stores, bakeries, banks, the gym, doctor’s offices, etc. We don’t buy water bottles. Does that mean I win your “look at what I do” argument? Of course not.

    Change doesn’t happen overnight. Viable solutions take time. New, greener technology takes time – mainly because it starts out (like all technology) very expensive, but like mostly all technology the price will drop as demand increases.

  48. Dave says:

    “Change doesn’t happen overnight. Viable solutions take time.”

    Which was exactly my original point before I was accused of having “dirty energy mafia friends who destroy mountains, kill streams, alter the climate, harm public heath and fund terrorists” I am the next generation and have been for some time. I see the obvious, which is realism. There are always early adopters and I happen to be one them.

    As for winning the “look at what I do” argument? No, you don’t because that wasn’t my argument. It was the pace of change and the early adopters who contribute to that change. But you do get points for walking the talk. I respect those who live their principles, and not just when it’s convenient.