Proposition: Shall the United States emulate Europe? Let’s examine that question through the lens of these marked differences:
THE “IRAN DEAL”
In short, Iran entered into years-long negotiations with the West over whether it would have a nuclear program, during the course of which it developed said nuclear program. The deal allowed it to preserve a temporarily curtailed program in exchange for the shipment of $1.7 billion in cash to Iran and relief from Western sanctions that had begun to bite. For the mullahs, it was the deal of the century. The economic benefits of the Accord were predictably poured into Iran’s expansion around the region. Rather than a new era of peace, the deal has coincided with more widespread conflict in the Middle East, at the hands of Iranian forces and Tehran’s proxies.” (National Review, May 2018) But Europe (and former President Obama) loves it, and can’t fathom why we pulled out.
Doctor administered deaths by lethal injection has been legalized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg and Colombia. In Switzerland, the previous little-known 1942 law permitting assisted suicide has become the basis for a flourishing “suicide tourism” industry. Tens of thousands of people have now been legally killed or assisted in suicide by doctors in these jurisdictions. There are so many examples of abuse of these laws I can’t even recount them, but some of the most egregious occur in the Netherlands. Here’s an example in 2016: A woman with dementia wrote a note stating she never wanted to live in a nursing home. Despite that, she was institutionalized. Her doctor, without asking, deciding the time had come to end her life, drugged the victim’s coffee so that she would sleep while they were administering the lethal injection. But during the injection, she woke up and fought to save her life. The doctor required her family members to hold her down while she forcibly killed her. The regional Review Committee exonerated the doctor because she had acted in “good faith.” (“Good” for whom? “Faith” in what?)
In our country, Oregon was–predictably if you’ve ever navigated the downtown Portland streets–the first state to legalize euthanasia. Definitions of “terminal” have predictably expanded. Once again, Oregon (for shame) leads the way. Their “Death with Dignity Act”–DWDA)–(see Netherland’s example for where that phrase leads) allows patients who cannot afford curative treatment (which includes insulin) and who would be “terminal” without it, to qualify for life-ending drugs.
CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING
“The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following:
On 5 October 2016, the conditions for the entry into force of the above-mentioned Agreement were met. Accordingly, the Agreement shall enter into force on 4 November 2016, in accordance with its article 21, paragraph 1, which reads as follows:
“This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 per cent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.” So says the U.N. memo on the “Paris Accords.” The Paris Agreement: establishes binding commitments by all Parties to prepare, communicate and maintain a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and to pursue domestic measures to achieve them; prescribes that Parties shall communicate their NDCs every 5 years and provide information necessary for clarity and transparency; reaffirms the obligations of developed countries to support the efforts of developing country Parties to build clean, climate-resilient futures, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by other Parties; relies on a robust transparency and accounting system to provide clarity on action and support by Parties, with flexibility for their differing capabilities of Parties. In addition to reporting information on mitigation, adaptation and support, the Agreement requires that the information submitted by each Party undergoes international review. The Agreement also includes a mechanism that will facilitate implementation and promote compliance in a non-adversarial and non-punitive manner, and will report annually to the CMA.”
That’s the usual vague and ambiguous U.N. language. The Heritage Foundation listed 4 reasons why the Paris Accords were terrible for the U.S. Here are my main two:
1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective. If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms. Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintain the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28%.
2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money. In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020. The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement. The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress. Some of the top recipients of these government-funded climate programs have in the past been some of the most corrupt, which means corrupt governments collect the funds, not those who actually need it.
That last sentence says it all to me–so U.N.!!! (The U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) members include such stellar champions of human rights as:
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela…). Just the kind of folks the USA wants to be affiliated with through U.N.-enforced accords. Ugh.
Just ask virtually any citizen (NOT government officials!) of any country in Europe how much they like their country’s immigration results in the last 5 years. If they get over their fear of consequences for saying the wrong thing–a chancy proposition–I doubt you will find much approval. Increasingly crime, especially violence against women and terrorist-type attacks, have soured most ordinary (non “elite”) citizens on the open arms idea. Here in the U.S. crime continues to be pursued by the “usual suspects”, but is down in most places, and terrorist-type attacks are still very rare. Here in the U.S., a 2017 study by the libertarian Cato Institute found that radical Islamist terrorists accounted for 92% of the deaths and 94% of the injuries due to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil over the last 25 years, the bulk of those in the Sept. 11 attacks.
My conclusion: I don’t miss the President who curried favor with Europe, and I won’t tolerate any future Presidents who do. In the meantime, I will praise what Trump has done regarding Europe. While the self-appointed elites bemoan our “loss of influence” because we don’t follow Europe, I cheer it!