"Sister" Pelosi speaks for God

House Minority Leader and Alzheimer poster girl Nancy Pelosi (Dummy-Ca.) attacked President Trump's decision for the U.S. to pull out of the Paris Accord. Sister Pelosi said "it dishonors" God.

" . . . we had a moral responsibility to be good stewards of God's creation, and in doing so, we must pay special attention to the needs of the poor. They saw it as an environmental justice issue as well, the evangelical community.

"When the Pope went to the White House, he talked about the danger of air pollution . . . and just last week, the Pope met with President Trump and gave him a copy of his encyclical, which made the case for strong, urgent action to halt the climate crisis. The Pope wrote: 'the climate is a common good belonging to all, and meant for all.' 

"The Bible tells us that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us--and that is just what we are doing by walking away from this Accord. 

"The question I have for Donald Trump as a mother of five and a grandmother of nine, how is he ever going to explain to his grandchildren what he did to the air they breathe--assuming they breathe air." 

Okay, so let's see if I have this right: Nancy Pelosi believes "that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship," and to "ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us."

That's confusing since Pelosi is fine with killing babies in the womb.  In fact, she has a 100 percent rating from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), the highest rating you can get if you are pro-abortion. 

In other words, if Pelosi doesn't have to actually see the face of the baby to be killed, she doesn't have a problem having he or she killed.

Nancy Pelosi voted against the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which passed the House and Senate, making partial birth abortion illegal using the barbaric practice of Intact Dilation and Extraction.

But the hypocrisy of the left should never surprise us--it's how they roll. Unfortunately, it's also how some on the right roll too.

Tweet

7 Reasons why the climate deal sucked for the U.S.

President Trump has met a campaign promise to get the United States out of the Paris climate deal, aka Paris Climate Accord. Leftists are screaming absurd claims that the world, as we know it, is coming to an end. 

But do they even know what the deal is all about?

Here are seven reasons the deal sucks both for the world, and especially for the United States.

1.  The agreement is just that--an agreement. It was meant to be a treaty but in order for the U.S. to sign a treaty it must be passed by two-thirds of Congress. Former President Obama knew he had a snowflake's chance in hell of that happening, so he went ahead using his executive powers and circumvented Congress. Thus, President Trump can unilaterally get rid of it like a bad rash.

The agreement, as such, is more like a "handshake." It is unenforceable and non-binding, which means that you can count on countries like China, India, Russia and Iran, just for starters, to do what's in their own best interests in terms of industrial growth .  .  .  because they can.

President Trump said of the deal: "China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can't build the plants but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020."

The Washington Post countered Trump's statement saying: "This is False. The agreement is non-binding and each nation sets its own targets. There is nothing in the agreement that stops the United States from building coal plants or gives China or India to build coal plants .  .  .  "

But The Washington Post can't have it both ways. If, as they say, it wouldn't stop the United States from building coal plants, then what's the point of the agreement if nobody is required to go along with it?

And what can be done if a country doesn't meet its goals or even increases greenhouse gases?

Nothing.

As Mr. Trump says, the agreement gives a lopsided advantage to China and India. In fact, it gives an advantage to any country that does what it wants to do in its own best interests in terms of industrial/manufacturing growth.  

2.  The major premise of the agreement is to reach the goal of holding global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial revolution levels. But this number is based on unproven and currently unknown future technology.

We know that humans contribute to global warming but we haven't a clue as to what extent that is.

3.  We will need more, not less, energy in the future. The International Energy Agency predicts that by 2040, our energy demands will grow by 37 percent as the world population approaches 9 billion.

4.  The wording of the Paris climate deal is often ambiguous. For example, it says that "All parties should cooperate to enhance the capacity of develop country Parties to implement this agreement." And, "Parties shall cooperate in taking measures as appropriate, to enhance climate change education, training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information."

How must countries cooperate? What are appropriate measures?

5.  So far, since it was signed, not a single country has done anything in the form of environmental action to comply with the deal. 

Every action has already begun before the accord was signed. The West will continue to work on reducing emissions and greenhouse gases while countries like China and India will continue to do all they can to grow.


6.  There is scant evidence Obama's proposed actions would have caused us to meet the goals of the accord. 

In fact, there's clear evidence that the United States will be in compliance with the accord without even being part of it. The fact is, our emissions continue to decrease nationally and are less than they were ten years ago.

Let's be honest--the left is angry because President Trump has shown the accord to be meaningless on one level, and destructive to our country, on another. 

7.  None of the countries actually intend to comply with the agreement and the West will meet the emissions goals set by the accord anyway, without taking further action.

The process was psychological. It helps us feel good about ourselves. If we signed the accord, we were the good guys; those who didn't were science deniers because "the science is settled."

How totally unscientific.

Anyone who really looks at the science does not doubt the planet is warming and humans do play some role. But let's face it, when scientists told us the world  was cooling, they came up with solutions for fix it. But they haven't changed their proposed fixes on global warming, and that's disconcerting.

If the problem changes but the solutions remain the same, that's screwed up.

As Erick Erickson explains in The Daily Wire:

In every case, the environmentalist left insists on a highly regulated command and control economy with abortion on demand and other measures to institute population control. Large families are a blight on the planet as is capitalism. There is a reason so much of the environment movement is referred to as a watermelon movement. They are green on the outside, but still red from their days of communist activism on the inside. Much of the modern environmentalist movement derives from Soviet era funded leftwing movements. Western communists turned into environmentalists after the Soviet Union collapsed. Now, instead of seeking to destroy capitalism in the name of equality, they seek to destroy it in the name of the environment. Instead of targeting large Christian families or ideas, they target them for resource consumption .  .  .  "

" .  .  .  All of us are supposed to be good stewards of our planet. We should conserve our resources and raise our children to appreciate God's creation. No one wants to see the world uninhabitable. But you'll have to forgive me for not caring about global warming. I trust the science. I just do not trust the supposed scientists."

And I trust that President Trump absolutely made the right decision to pull us out of the mud.




Tweet

Kerry--still stupid, after all these years

Former Communist-sympathizer and Secretary of State John Kerry ripped President Trump's intelligent decision to undo the Obama executive order and got us out of the Paris climate debacle. 

As we've been laughing at with the leftists going berserk over the move, Kerry is saying that "kids will have worse asthma" because Trump opted us out.

Yes--it's the children who will suffer. Suffer the poor children. What kind of animal would do that to kids?

"He is not helping the forgotten American . . . their kids will have worse asthma in the summer," the lantern-jaw hiker-biker-wind-sailor told MSNBC.

Meanwhile, it's Kerry and Obama whose weekly carbon footprints are larger than those of Montana in a year.

Kerry said Trump lied to us and put America "last," not first, and made the country an "environmental pariah" to the world. Then he flew home in his private jet, got on his gas-guzzling boat, and laughed like the lunatic he is.

Like Trump or hate him, his speech about the move was right on the money. We never voted on the accord because Obama knew it would never pass muster in the House and Senate, in spite of his party owning both branches of the legislature.

The agreement is non-binding. It was cobbled together like a bunch of dudes pledging to lose weight with each dude coming up with his own number of pounds to drop in the time the dude said he would. But if he didn't lose weight, it didn't matter because it was a non-binding pledge. That was what the Paris climate deal was--a BS agreement that counted on us to do the heavy lifting while we became smaller on the global market and countries like China and India, huge polluters, would grow exponentially.

We would cut carbon emissions 26 percent by 2025 and contribute billions to developing nations to help them grow and then do the same. China was under no obligation to do any cutting--all they'd do is grow and outperform us as we became a footnote in the world.

This was the dumbest, worst deal we've ever done, except for the Iran deal.


Obama is an idiot and Kerry is his prophet.




Tweet

Trump: "The deal's off Paris-I work for Pittsburgh"

President Trump said he would be making an announcement about his decision regarding the Paris climate agreement at 3:00 p.m. ET today and, true to his fans, he did. The drama is over--Mr. Trump abided by his campaign promise and said emphatically that we're going to exit the deal.

The Paris climate change agreement is a pact between almost 200 nations with the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a way to fight climate change. The U.S. is the planet's second largest carbon emitter, only exceeded by China. India is also high on the list.

The agreement requires the U.S. to reduce fossil fuel emissions by nearly 30 percent by 2025.

"So we're getting out," Mr. Trump said. "The Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States." (Translation: "The Accord de Paris is very, very unfair.")

Although Trump's decision pleases the base and many Republicans opposed to the global climate deal, it isolates us and the world leaders involved with the agreement, and some climate scientists will likely condemn us for dropping out. 

And leaving the deal aligns us with Nicaragua and Syria.

Some say it will hurt the economy but Trump and his supporters of the deal say it is going to create jobs in the future. But while the deal was pushed through by Obama via executive order (because that would've been the only way to get it through Capitol Hill), it will alienate our country and diminish our standing as a global leader, say some.

So with Obama pushing the deal through without a vote in the legislature, President Trump can cancel it without a vote in the legislature as well . . . kind of like what Harry Reid did with the nuclear option--they screwed the pooch.

It would have been better if Obama had tried to get it approved lawfully--that is, with Congressional approval. But he had his pen and he had his phone and he had little else to brag about.

President Trump made his announcement from the White House Rose Garden.

Candidate Trump promised to "cancel" the Paris climate deal during his first major policy speech on energy in March 2016. He attacked "draconian climate rules" and vowed to cut any funding for UN programs related to combatting any climate change programs. He even refused to acknowledge the human contribution to climate change and called it a "hoax." But when pressed on that comment he later said that he was "kidding."

Don't you just love a POTUS who's a kidder?

According to Politico, Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, have pushed for an exit of the deal while Trump's daughter Ivanka and business leaders along with other allies, have pushed a pro-Paris agenda.

Apple's Tim Cook and Tesla's Elon Musk have tried to convince Trump to stay in the agreement. 

Tom Steyer, a Democratic mega-donor, tweeted: "Generations of Americans will suffer the destructive effects of Trump's greedy, selfish, and immoral decision."

Except that it wasn't. The decision was based on a campaign promise to his base that he would undo a lot of what Obama did without legislative approval. Not everything Trump has done this early in his time in office has fulfilled campaign promises, but this one has and it isn't immoral.

It's immoral to say that it's immoral.

Everyone on the left blames Trump for anything they can that negatively impacts on his presidency. Nancy Pelosi even commented that he should have gone in alphabetical order to countries on his first trip abroad as president. 

You cannot make this insanity up!

Insofar as the Paris climate agreement goes, I'm not certain what we should do as a nation. But a campaign promise kept cannot be immoral.




Tweet

Germany's Merkel urges EU to control their own destiny re: climate change

Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Sunday that "the past few days" have demonstrated to her that the European Union needs to remain friendly with the US and the UK, but must also put "our destiny into their own hands." Merkel didn't mention President Trump by name because it gives her gas, but there's no question that it was he she was referring to as a response to his declining to join six other countries who have reaffirmed the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement at the G-7 summit in Sicily. 

This was one of former President Obama's biggest concerns. 

Not ISIS. Not Iran. Not Russia. Not China. Not North Korea. Not Islamic terrorism. Just the fact that the earth has warmed a small percentage of one degree Fahrenheit and that governments need to act as one--hopefully with him leading the world in the struggle to recycle and separate paper from plastic.

"The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over," she said, "as I have experienced in the past few days. And that is why I can only say: We Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands."

She and the EU are kind of doing that by allowing the mass immigration that floods the continent and is causing an increase in terror attacks as they sit in their fortified homes and offices.

She, along with other foreign leaders, tried to persuade President Trump to join them in their lunacy that calls for reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants that they believe contribute to climate change.

They may be correct, but to what degree does it contribute, and what other factors are involved? And how will reducing emissions help the poorest people whose cheapest energy source is coal? 

We have always been able to adapt to temperature changes through our technology. Isn't a warmer climate, if indeed that's true, going to help those who would otherwise die from the cold?

And what about Islamic terrorism?

When useful idiots like Obama say that the biggest threat to our survival is climate change, he's talking like trash. 

Trump has previously referred to climate change as a "hoax." I don't agree completely, just with the way it's being exaggerated. He said that he would announce his decision on joining the accord this week.

The White House argues that U.S. emissions standards are much tougher than those set by China, India and other nations. That, they say, puts the United States at a distinct disadvantage in our industrial production in the global market.

Trump's stance led Merkel to say that the climate talks were "very difficult, if not to say, very unsatisfactory."

To whom? The Chinese? India? Merkel?




Tweet