This ongoing swindle was one of Obama’s darlings along with the Iran Nuke Deal and the TPP. Sort of a leftist holy trinity to rule the New World Order. The Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was drafted and then signed on December 12, 2015 in Le Bourget, France. If the United States remained a participant it would cost taxpayers countless trillions of dollars plus millions of lost jobs. No one really knows how much, and if they say they do, they are either a GOAT, or a liar, or both.

President Trump has forfeited American leadership by announcing he is withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. “History will judge withdrawing from the Paris Agreement as a huge error,” says Trip Van Noppen, President of Earthjustice.

“Trump’s announcement is far from the final word. Legally, the United States is still in the Paris Agreement for at least the next year. As an environmental law organization, Earthjustice will continue to do everything in our power to accelerate the clean energy transition in the United States and globally. We are already working in states around the country and partners around the world. Trump's action won't reverse the momentum. The American people will not turn our back on climate leadership.”

“It is up to the rest of us to step forward and take the helm. My nation, the Republic of Palau, is doing just that,” writes President Tommy Remengesau in an opinion piece.

This is a question that each American citizen needs to answer. This is what this “Accord” is all about. It ain’t about the climate. Period. It’s about how 194 countries can redistribute the wealth of United States taxpayers. Period. And how can they bring the United States down to their level?

Does anyone really think these 194 polluters give a hoot about whether the earth warms up 1 to 2 degrees in the next 100 years? Especially since they know this is Science Fiction. Faulty models from fake scientists who have an ideological agenda.

Why are the big dumpers, China and India, exempt until the year 2030? Does anyone really believe they will pony up in 13 years? We may have a nuclear war or ISIS may have decapitated half the world’s population by then.

Here is some of the silliness these money-grubbers are fighting over:

Keeping the temperature increase since the Industrial Revolution “below” or “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)? Should there be a more ambitious target of 1.5 degrees Celsius? In reality, a goal of 2 degrees won’t be met.

How should the “common but differentiated responsibilities” that countries have accepted, in theory, be met in practice? Rich countries like the United States stress the word “common.” Developed countries have caused the warming of the planet, developing countries now account for nearly two-thirds of emissions. Poorer countries highlight the word “differentiated,” because they were not historically responsible for the problem. And the poorest countries want the document to emphasize they will need lots of financial and technological help to meet their goals.

Should the long-term goal be “zero greenhouse gas emissions,” “climate neutrality” or “decarbonization” when it comes to fossil fuels? Oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have balked at the word “decarbonization,” which implies a rapid, permanent move away from fossil fuels, even though scientists are in general agreement that the world economy must shift almost exclusively to renewable sources of energy.

The United States wants all countries to agree to take steps that are “measurable, reportable and verifiable.” In the absence of a global government, this central issue of the agreement will be largely based on the honor system. America and the European Union want stringent, data-based oversight so that the world will know whether countries are meeting their targets. Many countries are resisting specifying such a quantified approach.

Should rich countries be officially responsible for financial and technological help to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, or should all countries “in a position to do so?”

What provisions should be made for “loss and damage” suffered by countries that will suffer long-term damage to their infrastructure, health and even existence as a result of extreme weather?

As we read a summary of the critical issues, it should be noted that these are only critical in the minds of the people who want our money and want to drag us down to their beggarly status. The key words: ambitious target, differentiated responsibilities, world economy, global government, quantified approach, financial and technological help, and loss and damage spell out this leftist agenda that leads to a New World Order. One in which the United Nations rules.

Stay tuned for further developments if you see through this absurdity and still want a small, limited government that is close to home. I am here to lead you out of the ice age and into a bright future with 20/20: A Clear Vision for Our future

Check it out. Be part of the narrative.

God Bless us all and God Save our America from the United Nations. Our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our American Flag, our culture, our country, our civilization, our currency, our children, our liberty, our safety and our future need you now more than ever.