Global warming made the news on two fronts last week.
First, Donald Trump “officially” withdrew from the Paris climate accord he pretended to withdraw from nearly 2½ years ago. Second, a group of over 11,000 “scientists” published a warning in the journal Bioscience stating that the only way to truly deal with the “climate emergency” facing the planet is to immediately make sure that the global population is “stabilized and, ideally, gradually reduced within a framework that ensures social integrity.”
As far as Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement is concerned, it’s not all it’s cracked up to be based on his own words. When he initially made his June, 2017 announcement in the Rose Garden, Trumps said, “. . . the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, but begin negotiations to reenter [it] or an entirely new transaction . . .”
Shortly before that announcement, Trump’s defacto climate czar, Ivanka Trump, let the world know she controls the global warming agenda, and she took steps to make sure daddy didn’t step out of line on the issue.
Ivanka was a driving force behind the appointment of Kelvin Droegemeier as White House science advisor, a move praised by global warming extremists such as former science advisor under Obama, John Holdren (more on him in a moment).
In March of this year, her climate policies received a big boost when members of the GOP began laying the foundation for a Republican “alternative” to the Green New Deal. In August, a series of behind-closed-doors meetings were held between Democrats and Republicans to find a way to implement a carbon tax scheme — meetings that received the blessing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute.
But, as the late night informercials often say, “Wait! There’s more!”
Feeling the pressure of an increasingly shaky reelection, the Trump campaign just announced it will begin “softening the rhetoric” on the global warming issue. Trump will shift his position on global warming and adopt pro-environment messaging to appease the radical environmentalist demographic to increase his chances in states like Florida.
Now let’s discuss that “warning” demanding a decrease in the human population. Would it surprise you to learn that there are people working for the Trump administration who maintain connections with radicals who believe in the need for radical population control to “save” the planet? It shouldn’t.
As I mentioned earlier, Droegemeier’s nomination was praised by host of global warming extremists, including Obama’s former science advisor, John Holdren. As a believer in the need for extreme population control to address the global warming threat, Holdren has advocated the use of forced abortions, infanticide, and mandatory mass sterilization to do the job.
In expressing his support for the nomination, Holdren said Droegemeier “has the skills to get a lot done,” and called him “a solid choice.” Holdren also said, “He’s been a serious climate scientist, and he’s been a serious advisor to people in positions of influence.”
Droegemeier isn’t a new face in the global warming discussion in Washington; the “climate scientist” spent 12 years on the National Science Board under George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Even though it was Obama who signed the Paris climate accord, the controversial treaty first got its legs in the waning days of Bush’s presidency.
This is the background of the man now advising Trump on climate issues. Could this be why Trump and his daughter wanted him for the job? Could this be why the Trump campaign is “suddenly” embracing global warming hysteria? And could this eventually lead to government intervention to control the population?
Forgive me if this sounds repetitious, but I don’t want you to miss the population control connection to the global warming agenda and the dangerously close relationship it has with the Trump administration.
In a 2016 keynote speech celebrating 75 years of murdering babies by Planned Parenthood in Memphis, TN, Gloria Steinem defended the baby butchers by claiming that “forced childbirth” was “the single biggest cause of global warming.” This ideology is driving the pro-abortion policies of Democrat candidate for president Bernie Sanders, and while the #notDemocrat crowd likes to point at people like Sanders, we need ask how is he any different than Republicans.
Trump and the GOP have continued to give billions in taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood, and Trump’s new approach to global warming means taxpayer funds could soon be going to other countries to fight the so-called crisis. With population control becoming a bigger part of that fight, how do we keep these funds from being used to pay for abortions in other countries?
Trump is man lacking any core convictions, although his decision to appease environmental extremists might save his reelection. In the end, however, it might not do much to save the lives of unborn babies.
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative.
His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.
Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.
Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS
1 comment for “Trump shifting his global warming position, will abortion be next?”