Scroll down to read this post.


I am now running my annual July fund-raising campaign to celebrate the twelfth anniversary of the establishment of Behind the Black. For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. These companies practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.


Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.


Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Coalition of leftwing states and cities to uphold Paris climate treaty

The squealing of pigs: A coalition of leftwing states and cities has formed to uphold the Paris climate treaty from which President Trump has withdrawn.

Thirty cities, three states, more than 80 university presidents, and more than 100 companies are part of a growing group intending to uphold the Paris Agreement, the climate-change accord that President Donald Trump on Thursday announced the US would be exiting.

The group is being organized by the billionaire philanthropist Michael Bloomberg.

The coalition plans to submit a plan to the United Nations that commits to greenhouse-gas limits set in the Paris Agreement, according to The New York Times. It is negotiating with the UN to form its own National Determined Contribution — a set of emissions standards for each participating nation under the Paris Agreement — that is accepted alongside the other countries in the accord.

There is one big problem with this effort. It is plainly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, which states in Article 1, section 10 that “No state shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation. … No state shall, without the consent of Congress, … enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power.”

But then, I am not surprised. The left, led today by the Democratic Party, has shown itself in recent years to either be completely ignorant of some basic Constitutional laws, or eagerly willing to defy or ignore them.

Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.


“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.


Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


  • Ted

    Mr. Z. I would like to know what Companies have taken this stand – I did see Mars Candy (no more Snickers for me). What Cities have taken this stand (I saw Pittsburgh and even though my one son’s life was saved there at Allegheny General) I won’t be visiting again. What Universities? I thinks it’s time conservatives started voting with their Dollars, opinions etc that we do NOT stand with these organizations.

    If the left can pressure companies to do their liking by with holding support – why can’t we. Besides, lets see them try to do all the Paris Accords require WITHOUT Uncle Sams dollars. Needless to say the constitutional question is one that MUST be considered by the justice department. If the federal government can with hold money for not following federal this and that lets start de-funding these organizations for violation of the constitution.

  • Ted: Do a web search under the term “United States Climate Alliance”, in quotes. You will find lots of links to stories that provide more details. No webpage as yet has been set up by this alliance, but expect one to appear forthwith.

    Note that the Washington Post has already noted the Constitutional issues with this alliance and any international agreement it tries to make.

  • wodun

    I wouldn’t care if they tried to pass laws in their own states and cities. I wouldn’t vote for them but the American way is letting states and cities go their own way within the law. This would make them accountable to the voters in their states and cities.

    Trying to tie their policies to the UN or some other international body is a way to remove accountability and control from the American people. That is the exact opposite of what our American principles and laws are about.

    I have no problems with corporations acting as people and having a corporate ethos. By all means do what you want, just don’t force it on other companies. And allow for companies to hold an ethos that you disagree with. It is long past time that the only companies allowed to have a company ethos are the ones that adhere to ever changing progressive ideology.

  • LocalFluff

    “World leaders” are now ramming their heads into the wall by trying to ignore the US turning them the back. However would that be possible now that their only source of looting, the US, is gone? The explanation is that the “world leaders” are all very stupid. None of them has ever achieved anything. The only thinking they CAN do is to continue dead ahead as it were, regardless of everything.

    The stupidity of politics cannot be underestimated. Those who preach conspiracy theories make hopelessly impossible assumptions about the politicians’ abilities. There is no plan, no God, however much some want to believe that. Conspiracy and doomsday go hand in hand in the religious library of the mentally retarded wannabelievers’ psychopathic fantasy world.

    The problem with the leftists is that they don’t care at all about reality. They are all totally ego focused on their own theatrical demonstrations. They prefer that which is politically true before that which is really true. They are monkies imitating each other completely thoughtlessly. They are wrong and they fail but they don’t bother about such details as long as the lies they repeat are certifiably PC, for the time being at least. Socialism is stupidity.

  • Cotour

    “Trying to tie their policies to the UN or some other international body is a way to remove accountability and control from the American people. That is the exact opposite of what our American principles and laws are about.”

    This is the exact over arching purpose of the agreement, diminish America and the American people’s rights under the cover of “justice”, “equality”, or some other guilt laden logic . A friend asked me today: “What do you think of Trump pulling out of the Paris climate agreement?”

    “I have no problem with it, its something that should have gone through Congress but Obama and John Kerry just signed us up to pour our tax money into something beyond our control”. Then he continued: ” But every other country signed up to it”.

    “That’s the problem, why would you automatically, knee jerk think that to doing what everyone else was doing was what we should be doing? As soon as someone says something like that you know what you should be doing is exactly the opposite.

    Just like when someone says “I don’t care if the government wants to see what on my phone or my computer, Im not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to hide”. You know that they do not fundamentally understand the issue.

  • PeterF

    The Problem with The President’s withdrawal is that his communications SUCK. He needed to let the US population know approximately how much the stupid treaty was going to cost each of us! And then pound that into every “reporter” in the press room EVERY day.
    I don’t have a reference but supposedly India is demanding 2.5 Trillion dollars before they will comply.That alone comes to over $8000 for every man woman and child in the US. I don’t know how much that works out for every household/taxpayer And thats only India.
    And the countries that are screaming the loudest? They are the ones that were expecting us to gift them hundreds of billions to assist them with carbon reduction.

  • Edward

    The “everyone else is doing it” argument shows that the person saying it has not analyzed the situation. If he cannot explain the advantages that everyone else is getting and why he would get the same benefits, then he does not understand what he is advocating.

    In this case, every other country was signing up, and are so angry that we are withdrawing, because they all expected to get free money from us (apparently, Syria and Nicaragua dislike us so much that they won’t take our money even if it is funneled through the UN). Their benefit was lots of free money from us, but we did not get the same benefit.

    If the agreement would have resulted in the cessation of the oceans rising (are they?) or the cessation of global warming (is it) or the cessation of climates changing (should they cease?) in order to save all our lives from the ravages of a warming globe or a changing climate (like the last time climates changed and temperatures rose killed off all of the plant’s life, remember?), then that is one thing. But the agreement would do no such thing, which is another reason why we laugh so hard at all the people who are so upset over our withdrawal from the agreement.

    Also, when someone tells you that they have nothing to hide, inform them that you can have a webcam in their shower by morning, and that its broadcast will include home address, phone number, birth date, social security number, email addresses and passwords, other computer or internet accounts and their passwords, bank account information and pins, etc.

    They have plenty to hide, and they should keep it hidden.

    Even from a supposedly benign government, because if it were so benign, why would it want to know?

  • Cotour

    He is an MSNBC tool. As a matter of fact we were also talking about socialism (he thinks he is a socialist of some sort. Loves, loves, loves Obama. “Obama will be remembered as one of the best presidents”. Like all good Liberals , socialists or what ever, they have most everything 180 degrees backwards).

    He says “What about the Pilgrims? They came here and they worked together as one to be successful”.

    Then I informed him of the actual history associated with the Pilgrims and their “beautiful” socialist experiment. Conversation over.

    A good person, a good friend, but a tool.

  • pzatchok

    Supposedly all this carbon tax/credits are to clean up the ecology of the producing nations, like India, by taxing the consuming nations. I.E. the US.

    Instead of a”carbon” (import) tax imposed on consuming nations why not just impose an export tax on any products that dirty the environment of the producing nations?
    Because it will raise the price of the products coming out of those nations and people will stop buying from them. That would stop polluting the environment but it would also stop cash from going into those economies.

    The US cleaned up its environment all by itself. Why can’t the rest of the world do the same?

  • pzatchok

    Well instead of import export taxes to pay for cleaning third world environments they realized they had to take a different tactic.

    Charge the carbon emissions of everyone because only the richest nations have the biggest carbon emissions. thus the poorest nations get all the carbon tax revinue. Especially if they produce nothing for export.

  • LocalFluff

    “The US cleaned up its environment all by itself. Why can’t the rest of the world do the same?”

    They are, and will. Just like London during its industrialization, Beijing is today giving more and more attention to the smog. The most important step is to make sure that the children can survive from starvation, then the luxury of environment can be addressed. The higher the economic growth the sooner will the environment be cleaned up.

    And the climate has nothing to do with the environment. Real environmental problems, since decades now completely ignored by all “green” parties, consist mostly of the pollution and over-fishing of the seas. Forestry and agriculture would be other concerns, but thanks to human emissions of CO2 they are booming and the entire Earth is quickly getting greener.

  • LocalFluff

    Stopping bio fuel would be a big improvement for the environment. Pumping up mineral oil from the underworld doesn’t hurt any wild life, while bio fuel means mechanically killing all life in huge area and turning it into an agrochemical monoculture of some artificially created grain, in order to grow food to burn. I say that after the oceans, bio fuel is the greatest environmental disaster today. Oil and gas are environmentally neutral to extract and use and should always be prefered, and are of course also much cheaper than bio fuel that requires tax monies in order to exist at all. The parasiting farmers have a lot of political influence all over the world. They make sure they get rich without ever producing anything useful. It was like that already in Roman times.

  • ken anthony

    May they all become Venezuela.

    To the left, laws are just one more means to an end. As we have not held them accountable WE, the supposed adults, are responsible for this slow motion train wreck. We need to understand the existential threat, unite and take them apart piece by piece, which is exactly what the left has done for decades.

    Now that we control all branches of govt down to the states, the example we are setting is not hopeful.

    Trump is the president. Wasting this opportunity is a crime against humanity. He’s doing alone what should be a team effort. I’ve disagreed with my boss in about every job I’ve ever held, but I’ve always supported them publicly 110% Disagree with Trump all you like, but cutting your own throat, which seems lead by McCain and others, isn’t very smart. Our differences should be resolved in private while presenting a united front to the world. Anyone so ‘principled’ they can’t agree shouldn’t be included. This isn’t the time for childishness that will get us all killed,

  • Cotour

    Thinking about it for a second, let the cities of America that are lead by these Liberal Democrats do as their mayors please. At least the mayors are accountable to their citizens for their actions and tax payer funds spent, and there is a level of feed back and control. I am not seeing that essential feedback mechanism in the Paris accord. And I mean essential.

    Depending on their results they will find out soon enough how successful this whole thing is. Who could argue with reducing pollution in our environment? I assume there are other schemes that can be developed that will incentivize the various country’s around the world to reduce their pollution (notice I said pollution) without diminishing the sovereignty of America and its bank account.

    The workable scheme could probably be developed right here on this site given the broad spectrum of high IQ nerds / professionals and practical, everyday problem solvers.

    And the bonus here is witnessing the total discomfort and stress that everyone’s Democrat / Liberal friends are going through. That for me is the one metric that tells me that our country is now going in the general correct direction.

  • wayne

    We don’t need any more ingenious, Mastermind, Plans, from anyone.

    If these people want to condemn their citizens by following a No Growth Eco-Marxist Plan, I say let them, as long as the gravy-train from D.C. has been completely derailed.

    (One of these days….in an Alternative-Galaxy, far, far, away, —somebody is going to rise up against these people, drag them from their Castle’s, and kill them all. It would wrong, but I wouldn’t care one micron & I will not lift a finger to prevent it.)

  • wayne

    On a less dramatic note, this Paris ‘thing is not an actual Treaty under our laws.
    (we need to be mindful, of not inadvertently adopting any of the narratives of the left)

    I believe the more correct term is “executive agreement.” Trump doesn’t need any cooperation or authority from Congress, to exit this. The only question is, if he will actually follow through.

    Meanwhile–this manufactured crisis is a huge distraction to passing Tax cuts, repealing Obamacare, and reforming Entitlements.

  • Edward

    You wrote: “Then I informed him of the actual history associated with the Pilgrims and their ‘beautiful’ socialist experiment. Conversation over.

    I hope you pointed out that it was when they turned to free market capitalism that they stopped dying and started thriving.

    In my experience, most Democrats and socialists seem to be good people at heart, they just prefer to think of themselves as bad people who need an overbearing government to keep them from doing bad. They especially think that everyone else is bad, too, projecting their own feelings of inadequacy, insecurity, and occasional hateful thoughts onto the rest of us and concluding that the rest of us also need a kindly government controlling our supposed evil tendencies. They believe that since they have been peer-pressured into hating Republicans and capitalists, then Republicans and capitalists must have likewise been pressured into hating them.

    It is because we do not hate that we are so surprised that they do. We also project ourselves onto them, thinking that they couldn’t be as they seem, because we aren’t that way.

    wayne wrote: “If these people want to condemn their citizens by following a No Growth Eco-Marxist Plan, I say let them, as long as the gravy-train from D.C. has been completely derailed.

    Wait. Do you mean that other countries are sovereign nations that should not be coerced by outside forces? Gee, what a concept. That sounds like a vote against the Paris Agreement, as well as Kyoto.

    pzatchok asled: “The US cleaned up its environment all by itself. Why can’t the rest of the world do the same?

    Well, that’s hard work. Who wants to do hard work willingly? It is so much better to have outside forces coerce you into it as though you aren’t a sovereign nation, like the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Accord should have done but don’t. Paris and Kyoto only spread cash from the coffers of wealthy nations that fail to clean up their acts to the coffers of poor nations who don’t have to clean up their acts. Both agreements actually depend upon nations to continue to pollute and especially to continue to generate CO2.

    The US cleaned up its act, because the free people of this country insisted upon clean air and clean water. We the People coerced industry, the government, and each other into assuring that pollution stopped. The US reduced its own “carbon footprint,” successfully conforming to Kyoto’s emission targets, because it was economical to do so.

    Other countries don’t clean up because their people have too many other problems to worry about.

    Because we all know and understand that the claims are bogus of disastrous effects of CO2 in the air, we do not coerce each other to stop driving our cars, stop buying goods (emitting CO2 during manufacture) that were transported using CO2 emitting fuels, unplugging our refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners, or stop cooking our food, heating our water, or heating our buildings.

    The alarmists have been crying wolf all our lives, yet we still live in a world with clean air, clean water, and an ocean level that is where it was when we were children at the beach by the sea. We aren’t as stupid as the alarmists think we are.

    We certainly aren’t willing to stop these activities on our own, when we all know climate change is natural, not man made. We all know that humans cannot stop any changes in our climate, and the claim otherwise is bogus.

  • Cotour

    Yes, that was the point of me bring it up in conversation. I did point out the fact that they started out in a socialist model and almost nearly all died and then went to a free market model and were then able to survive and thrive. I had in fact forgotten that fact until you reminded me of it a couple of months ago in one of your enlightening posts. Thank you.

    This is how counter intuitive these people can be as evidenced by the insane arguments we all hear in the media today. My friend, who like I mentioned is a nice guy, not a violent person, says to me.

    “Scott Pruitt, I hope he gets cancer.”

    I said “Who is Scott Pruitt and why would you wish cancer on him?”

    “Scott Pruitt is the new head of the EPA and what they are doing is going to cause people to get cancer. So I wish it on him.” And then he added “And his entire family”. (At this point I usually point out that he is a knuckle head)

    I said “You know for someone who claims to be sooo compassionate for other people what you just said is a very sick and demented thing to say”. “I don’t care”.

    Just like Kathy Griffin, anything goes. I have free speech! But no one said that your speech which might be hateful and despicable will not come with consequences.
    An email I sent out related to this: TRUMP DID IT!

    Apparently Trump drove Griffin to pose with his severed and blood dripping head while exercising her freedom of speech and the backlash from her act is also Trumps fault. (?) Actions have consequences, actions even have consequences that are unseen. Looking for attention and fame? Be careful the road that you choose to achieve it.
    To me, putting talk like that out into the universe is bad Karma. I would never say such a thing. Some of these people that we are sharing this country with are very narrow thinkers and are woefully uninformed from my constant and on going investigations. And they are unknowingly driving us in the wrong and socialist direction as a function of their narrow mindedness and ignorance.

  • Edward

    that was the point of me bring it up in conversation.

    Nice to know that I have made a small difference in this world.

    Why is your friend so upset with Scott Pruitt rather than the previous EPA Administrator? Gina McCarthy used taxpayer dollars to dump millions of gallons of toxic water into western US rivers in two events of contamination. Pruitt is the guy who has to clean up McCarthy’s massive, widespread, pollution mess. I missed, from your tale, what Pruitt has done to create any cases of cancer, much less more cases than McCarthy may have caused.

    McCarthy’s EPA did not respond well to investigations over these spills, either, this one being for the 3 million gallon spill into Colorado’s Animas River on August 5, 2015:

    McCarthy’s EPA didn’t like to follow environmental laws, either:

    Shouldn’t your friend be upset that the previous administration is responsible for one of the biggest (if not the biggest) pollution messes in US history, spanning multiple states? If he is not upset by that, then why not?

    I find comedienne Kathy “New Year’s Eve Strip Tease” Griffin’s antics hilarious. She disrespects and victimizes the office of the president by pretending to be an ISIS terrorist, then claims to be the victim when even the Democrats and progressives don’t think it is funny. I’m laughing at her, not with her. Did I mention the simulated blow job one New Year’s Eve? Has she ever had any humorous jokes or is it just that everyone else laughs at her, not with her, too?

  • Cotour

    My friends entire position is based in Scott Pruitt apparently receiving some amount of money from somewhere, I am not sure where. At the point at which he says this I introduce his not having a problem with Hillary Clinton receiving through her Foundation up to about $50 million +++ dollars from Russian interests over several years and then her as Secretary Of State signing off on the final OK to sell 25% of our uranium to the Russians and Russian interests. And of course Bill Clinton’s “speech” which he was paid $500K for. Where was the speech you ask? Moscow! (Moscow is in Russia I point out) I can chew him up pretty bad.

    And he assumes that if there is less regulation by the EPA that people will die from it so his logic is that more people will die so Scott Pruitt should get cancer. I have to ask him why he gives Trump a cancer pass for hiring him to dial down and eliminate unnecessary regulation.

    That is always a head scratcher to him. Why have I never heard of this money to Hillary in the media? I hear it all the time, your media never brings it up (MSNBC). Out of sight out of mind. He is totally unable to see or comprehend any of these actual facts, thinks its all just one big conspiracy attempting to smear Hillary. These are documented facts!

    And never mind about anything the previous administration may have done, he is unable to say anything negative about it. “Obama is probably the smartest, most descent and caring presidents we have ever had” A direct quote. What in the fornication is he smoking? I just shake my head.

    And in short order Kathy Griffin will be in high demand, performing in front of like minded anti American uninformed dolts who are unable to detect facts and draw a reasonable conclusion about them.

  • wayne

    Have a lefty friend exactly like yours–who loves the EPA. I never miss an opportunity to remind him that Richard Nixon established the EPA.

    Edward– good stuff.

  • ken anthony

    Now tell me another president that would have done what Trump did?

    We dodged a bullet and it wasn’t just Hillary.

  • Edward

    Come to think of it, what is wrong with the rest of the world getting upset at the US for refusing to pass out terabucks to the poorer nations? After all, do we not expect the rich people of society to donate to charities that give to the poor? Charities hold a fancy party, ask the donors for millions in order to provide job training or whatever, then watch the megabucks roll in.

    (Why hold the expensive fancy party when more of the donors’ money would go to the charity otherwise? Because the donor needs personal assurance that the money will be well spent so that he will feel altruistic, and he wants an opportunity to hobnob with others who also donate their fortunes.)

    The donor wants the donation to go for a good cause. At the party, the charity describes how poor people will get out of poverty. The donor will be a do-gooder. So perhaps the US should be a do-gooder, too.

    If we expect charity from the rich, why not global warming/climate catastrophe charity from the US?

    When the US donates (that is what the Kyoto and Paris agreements amount to), it wants something good to happen, such as the receiving country to recover from a disaster or to increase its economy while cutting back on CO2 emissions (which often requires, ironically, cutting back on its economy). When we get international agreements like Paris or Kyoto, we have to wonder how the nations that receive our hard earned money are going to improve when the agreements do not require them to try.

    The Paris proposal is flawed. Even the proponents of the proposal admit that even should Paris work as intended, not one whit of disaster will be averted, but the states, cities,and companies that have shown an interest in upholding Paris do not seem to care.

    You wrote: “I can chew him up pretty bad.

    At least your argument revolved around your friend’s implication of bribery, but now, using the articles that I linked, you can also chew him up pretty bad without having to leave the topic of the EPA. Arguments weaken when they stray from the topic at hand, so be sure to circle back to the EPA rather than linger on Clinton’s or Obama’s corruption.

    ken anthony aksed: “Now tell me another president that would have done what Trump did?

    Reagan, for an actual president.

    Johnson, for a 2016 presidential candidate.

    For Republican primary candidates: Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Paul, Walker.

  • Cotour

    Its funny you mention “straying”. I constantly during conversations have to drag him back to the original subject matter. It never fails that when actual information specific to the subject gets mildly intense inevitably the conversation is expanded to totally unrelated areas until there is no reason to continue.

    It all turns into minutia without any point.

    In my experience most all political conversations all tend to become polluted with extraneous information driven by emotion which only serves to confuse, but that’s the point of politics. Isn’t it?

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote: “It never fails that when actual information specific to the subject gets mildly intense inevitably the conversation is expanded to totally unrelated areas until there is no reason to continue.

    Be careful that the straying conversation is doing so naturally, as opposed to an argument in which someone who has no counterpoint merely hides that fact by changing the subject, however subtly.

    The point of politics is to find a polite agreement.

    The point of a political argument is to convince the unconvinceable that I am right, with the added bonus of you realizing that you were wrong. Sometimes, this fails when one or both of those arguing discover that they are actually in violent agreement. Hopefully, that realization happens before too many summer teeth are created (some are here, some are there).

Readers: the rules for commenting!


No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.


However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.


Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.