Exposed: An Errant Environmental Encyclical Courtesy Of Pope Francis

The Laudato Si encyclical on climate, sustainability and the environment prepared by and for Pope Francis is often eloquent, always passionate but often encumbered by platitudes, many of them erroneous.

“Man has slapped nature in the face,” and “nature never forgives,” the pontiff declares. “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as in the last 200 years.” It isn’t possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society. “Each year thousands of species are being lost,” and “if we destroy creation, it will destroy us.”

The pope believes climate change is largely manmade and driven by a capitalist economic system that exploits the poor. Therefore, he says, we must radically reform the global economy, promote sustainable development and wealth redistribution, and ensure “intergenerational solidarity” with the poor, who must be given their “sacred rights” to labor, lodging and land (the Three L’s).

All of this suggests that, for the most part, Pope Francis probably welcomes statements by his new friends in the United Nations and its climate and sustainability alliance.

One top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official bluntly says climate policy is no longer about environmental protection; instead, the next climate summit will negotiate “the distribution of the world’s resources.” UN climate chief Christiana Figueres goes even further. UN bureaucrats, she says, are undertaking “probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the global economic development model.” [emphasis added]

However, statements by other prominent prophets of planetary demise hopefully give the pope pause.

Obama science advisor John Holdren and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, in their Human Ecology book: “We need to de-develop the United States” and other developed countries, “to bring our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” We will then address the “ecologically feasible development of the underdeveloped countries.” [emphasis added]

Ehrlich again: “Giving society cheap energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.” And most outrageous: The “instant death control” provided by DDT was “responsible for the drastic lowering of death rates” in poor countries; so they need to have a “death rate solution” imposed on them.

Radical environmentalism’s death campaigns do not stop with opposing DDT even as a powerful insect repellant to prevent malaria. They view humans (other than themselves) as consumers, polluters and “a plague upon the Earth” – never as creators, innovators or protectors. They oppose modern fertilizers and biotech foods that feed more people from less land, using less water. And of course they are viscerally against all forms and uses of hydrocarbon energy, which yields far more energy per acre than alternatives.

Reflect on all of this a moment. Unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucrats have given themselves the authority to upend the world economic order and redistribute its wealth and resources – with no evidence that any alternative they might have in mind will bring anything but worse poverty, inequality and death.

Moreover, beyond the dishonest, arrogant and callous attitudes reflected in these outrageous statements, there are countless basic realities that the encyclical and alarmist allies sweep under the rug.

We are trying today to feed, clothe, and provide electricity, jobs, homes, and better health and living standards to six billion more people than lived on our planet 200 years ago. Back then, reliance on human and animal muscle, wood and dung fires, windmills and water wheels, and primitive, backbreaking, dawn-to-dusk farming methods made life nasty, brutish and short for the vast majority of humans.

As a fascinating short video by Swedish physician and statistician Hans Rosling illustrates, human life expectancy and societal wealth has surged dramatically over these past 200 years.

None of this would have been possible without the capitalism, scientific method and hydrocarbon energy that radical, shortsighted activists in the UN, EPA, Big Green, Inc. and Vatican now want to put in history’s dustbin.

Over the past three decades, fossil fuels – mostly coal – helped 1.3 billion people get electricity and escape debilitating, often lethal energy and economic poverty. However, 1.3 billion still do not have electricity. In India alone, more people than live in the USA still lack electricity; in Sub-Saharan Africa, 730 million (equal to Europe) still cook and heat with wood, charcoal and animal dung.

Hundreds of millions get horribly sick–and 4-6 million die every year from lung and intestinal diseases, due to breathing smoke from open fires and not having clean water, refrigeration and unspoiled food.

Providing energy, food, homes and the Three L’s to middle class and impoverished families cannot happen without nuclear and hydrocarbon energy and numerous raw materials. Thankfully, we still have these resources in abundance because “our ultimate resource” (our creative intellect) has enabled us to use “fracking” and other technologies to put Earth’s resources to productive use serving humanity.

Little solar panels on huts, subsistence and organic farming, and bird-and-bat-butchering wind turbines have serious cost, reliability and sustainability problems of their own. If Pope Francis truly wants to help the poor, he cannot rely on these “alternatives” or on UN and Big Green ruling elite wannabes. Who are they to decide what is “ecologically feasible,” what living standards people will be “permitted” to enjoy, or how the world should “more fairly” share greater scarcity, poverty and energy deprivation?

We are all obligated to help protect our planet and its people – from real problems, not imaginary ones. Outside the computer modelers’ windows, in The Real World, we are not running out of energy and raw materials. (We’re just not allowed to develop and use them.) The only species going extinct have been birds on islands where humans introduced new predators – and raptors that have been wiped out by giant wind turbines across habitats in California and other locations. Nor are we encountering climate chaos.

No category 3-5 hurricane has struck the USA in a record 9-3/4 years. (Is that blessing due to CO2 and capitalism?) There has been no warming in 19 years because the sun has gone quiet again. We have not been battered by droughts more frequent or extreme than what humanity experienced many times over the millennia, including those that afflicted biblical Egypt, the Mayas and Anasazi, and Dust Bowl America.

The scientific method brought centuries of planetary and human progress. It requires that we propose and test hypotheses that explain how nature works. If experimental evidence supports a hypothesis, we have a new rule that can guide further health and scientific advances. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, we must devise a new premise – or give up on further progress.

But with climate change, a politicized method has gained supremacy. Based on ideology, it ignores real-world evidence and fiercely defends its assumptions and proclamations. Laudato Si places the Catholic Church at risk of surrendering its role as a champion of science and human progress, and returning to the ignominious persecution of Galileo.

Nor does resort to sustainable development provide guidance. Sustainability is largely interchangeable with “dangerous manmade climate change” as a rallying cry for anti-hydrocarbon, wealth redistribution and economic transformation policies. It means whatever particular interests want it to mean and has become yet one more intolerant ideology in college and government circles.

Climate change and sustainability are critical moral issues. Denying people access to abundant, reliable, affordable hydrocarbon energy is not just wrong. It is immoral – and lethal.

It is an unconscionable crime against humanity to implement policies that pretend to protect the world’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical manmade climate and other dangers decades from now – by perpetuating poverty, malnutrition and disease that kill millions of them tomorrow.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Can Obama Make A Deal With Iran?

Recently, the United Nations Security Council endorsed the landmark nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers. They also adopted a series of measures leading to the end of U.N. sanctions on the country.

Senator Mark Kirk, R-Ill. weighed in, calling the plan to “preempt” Congress’ review with a Security Council vote a “breathtaking assault on American sovereignty and Congressional prerogative. ”

Obama told reporters he’s hopeful Congress “will pay attention to that broad-based consensus” of the U.N.

But even if Congress votes down the deal, Obama has vowed to veto their legislation.

Many Americans are concerned for a variety of different reasons. There is the fear that if Congress doesn’t agree to the terms, America will have no inspections, no control over Iran. Another grave concern is the potential threat to American allies in the Middle East, and even the Islamic threat to America.

All these concerns make for great discussions, headlines, and shouting matches; and no doubt we have experienced all of the above.

But isn’t the real question “how did our Framers instruct America’s government to deal with treaties between other nations?”

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution states: “He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”.

Finally, Article 6 requires that Treaties must be made under the authority of the United States.

President George Washington warned us in his farewell address: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence…the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of the republican government.”

If all the President had to do to bypass Congress and the Constitution is create a treaty with the U.N., then whose country would this be?  It certainly would no longer remain the country of “We the People,” where God-given rights are secure.

So to answer my title question, “Can Obama make a deal with Iran?” Well, yes, but that is his deal, not the deal of these United States; and it has absolutely no authority over our elected representatives or We the People.


Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Right After The UN Approved Obama’s Iran Deal, Iran Had The Nerve To Do THIS To U.S.

Following the United Nations Security Council’s unanimous vote to approve the Iranian nuclear deal, that nation’s ambassador took a swipe at the United States.

While U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power stated the U.S. position that the agreement would make the “world safer,” she made clear that America still has outstanding issues that must be addressed with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Power said the nuclear deal doesn’t change the United States’ “profound concern about human rights violations committed by the Iranian government or about the instability Iran fuels beyond its nuclear program, from its support for terrorist proxies to repeated threats against Israel to its other destabilizing activities in the region.”

“But denying Iran a nuclear weapon is important not in spite of these other destabilizing actions but rather because of them,” Power explained.

She also urged Iran to release three “unjustly imprisoned” Americans and to determine the whereabouts of Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent who vanished in 2007.

Iranian U.N. Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo did not respond to the issues raised by Power concerning the United States’ prisoners or its threats towards Israel’s existence, except to accuse both nations of being the true creators of instability in the region.

“The country that invaded two countries in our region and created favorable grounds for the growth of terrorism and extremism is not well placed to raise such accusations against my country,” Iranian U.N. Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo said, calling past U.S. actions in the region “feckless” and “reckless.”

As for Israel, the Iranian official said the “…regime is the only obstacle in the way of establishing a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East.” He added that nuclear weapons stockpiled by the Jewish state “constitute a grave threat to the security of the region. The Security Council should live up to its primary responsibility under the U.N. Charter and take necessary action to neutralize this.”

Israel has never officially acknowledged the existence of its nuclear weapons program, but it is also not a signatory of the United Nations’ Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; therefore, it is not in violation of international law. Its program has reportedly been in existence since the 1960s. The Federation of American Scientists estimates the nation has 80 nuclear warheads.

As reported by Western Journalism, the Obama administration, in a highly controversial move, declassified a top secret Pentagon document in February detailing Israel’s nuclear weapons capability as it existed in the 1980s.

The nation, which has been invaded multiple times by neighboring states since its modern day inception in 1948, reportedly maintains the stockpile as a deterrent and weapon of last resort.

Following the Security Council’s vote in favor of the Iranian nuclear agreement on Monday, Israel’s U.N. representative, Ron Prosor, denounced it, saying: “Today, you have awarded a great prize to the most dangerous country in the world.” He also called the deal “dangerous to the region, to the people of the region.”

As reported by Western Journalism, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu listed three reasons he believes the deal is a “stunning, historic mistake”:

  1. It lifts economic sanctions against the rogue regime, allowing hundreds of billions of dollars to flow into Iran.
  2. It keeps Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in place.
  3. It gives Iran 24 days to respond to any inspection of facilities by the U.N.

NBC News noted that Netanyahu’s wariness about the deal is also “shared by the Arab world, where countries expressed skepticism that a deal would really prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, and voiced fears that Iran would only gain more in the region without economic sanctions.”

“It doesn’t happen very often in history, but when Arabs and Israelis agree, it’s worth paying attention,” Netanyahu told NBC News. “Iran is different. It’s a zealot country,” he said. “It is governed by a group that believes in militant Islamic fundamentalism. It’s killed a lot of Americans. It’s killing everybody in sight in the Middle East.”

Fox News reports: “Under the nuclear agreement, Iran’s nuclear program will be curbed for a decade in exchange for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of relief from international sanctions. Many key penalties on the Iranian economy, such as those related to the energy and financial sectors, could be lifted by the end of the year.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama Just Deliberately Poked Congress Right In The Eye On This Huge Issue

Reports show that President Obama is sticking his finger in the collective eye of both Congress and the people of the United States by trying to make an end run around Congress and our Constitution with a hastily engineered U.N. vote on his much-criticized Iran deal before Congress even gets a chance to debate the treaty.

Obama is pushing a draft United Nations Security Council resolution to implement the lifting of sanctions as outlined in his Iran deal without any input from Congress and, therefore, without any input from the American people.

In fact, if Obama succeeds in getting the U.N. to agree to his demands quickly and before Congress meets, it may render any decisions that Congress makes on the sanctions moot.

As the Heritage Foundation’s Brett Schaefer points out, “Once the Security Council takes action on this matter, it will rescind seven painstakingly negotiated Security Council resolutions adopted over the past decade.”

Schaefer continued, saying:

It will also start the clock on a cascade of sanctions relief commitments by the U.S. and the European Union.

Once started, the possibility of re-erecting this sanctions framework is vanishingly small. Even if the snapback provisions in the agreement work as described, given the incentives for key parties and commercial interests to avoid re-imposition of sanctions, they will only be viable after proof of Iranian violations are grossly evident.

Meanwhile, more than $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets will be released over the next year.

Naturally, this $100 billion in assets will be immediately available for the Mullahs to use for exporting terrorism all across the Middle East and the world.

Going to the U.N. Security Council before Congress can debate the treaty shows that Obama doesn’t care at all what the duly elected representatives of the American people have to say about his Iran deal. He fully intends to ignore his own country and implement his odious deal using foreigners as his muscle.

Some in Congress have noticed, too. In a letter to the President, Rep. Ed Royce (R, CA) has expressed his disappointment over Obama’s actions.

“It is distressing that your administration would afford Russia and China the opportunity to vote on the final agreement before the American people’s representatives do,” Royce said. “The full 60-day review period and parliamentary procedures prescribed by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act should be allowed to play out before action at the Security Council.”

Meanwhile, few are expressing much faith in Obama’s deal with the biggest terrorist state in the world. In fact, on Friday, it was learned that despite Obama’s claim that “inspections” will prevent Iran from ever developing a nuclear arsenal, no American inspectors will ever be allowed to set foot in Iran. So, despite Obama’s bland assurances, there won’t be any way at all to determine if Iran is cheating or not as Obama has engineered a permanent ban on American nuclear inspectors.

With this Iran deal, Obama is taking the word of the fox that the hen house is in safe hands.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Analysis: Another Arab Dictator On His Way Out

What’s behind France’s decision to drop their U.N. bid to turn PA into a Palestinian state?

Last week Israeli media reported that France had apparently abandoned its diplomatic bid to advance a United Nations resolution to force Israel to withdraw from the West Bank within a limited time frame.

Ha’aretz reported that Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Maliki told the radio station Voice of Palestine that “the French initiative to put forward a U.N. Security Council resolution based on the two-state solution and renewing peace talks is no longer topping the agenda of French leadership and they have withdrawn (from the idea).” Al-Maliki claimed the change in the French plans was the result of American and Israeli pressure. The Obama administration has reportedly said the initiative should remain on a back burner until a nuclear deal with Iran is reached.

Al-Maliki furthermore claimed that the French are now contemplating putting forward a new proposal that would call for the establishment of an international committee to oversee the renewal of bilateral talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

The real reason the French government decided to bury the initiative is probably their realization that there are no serious buyers for the initiative on either side under current circumstances.

The French government went back on its decision about pursuing the U.N. resolution after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.

Fabius was appalled by the chaos in the Palestinian leadership and got the impression that PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who was hitherto regarded by the French as the ideal peace partner for Israel, has become part of the problem.

Al-Monitor reported that “this diagnosis is shared by senior Palestinian figures, foreign diplomats and Israelis who are in close contact with both [Abbas and Netanyahu].” The news site pointed to a recent op-ed written by Israeli statesman and scholar Yossi Beilin, who was one of the architects of the Oslo interim agreement. In the article, under the headline, “Something is rotten in the kingdom of Ramallah,” Beilin wrote that Abbas is acting like one of the dictators in the Arab countries.

“He cited as an example last week’s decision by the Palestinian president to fire Yasser Abed Rabbo, who was for years one of his closest associates and headed the PLO’s executive committee. He did so without due process and without informing Abed Rabbo of the decision,” Al-Monitor reported.

PLO Secretary General Abed Rabbo was the latest victim of Abbas’ conviction that there is a conspiracy against him organized by former Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan.

Abed Rabbo was fired because of his close ties to former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is an ally of Dahlan. Earlier, Abbas ordered Palestinian Attorney General Abdel-Ghani al-Awewy to confiscate $1.6 million from a foundation headed by Fayyad. The Palestine Tomorrow for Social Development Foundation was founded by Fayyad and aims to empower impoverished segments of Palestinian society.

An anonymous high-ranking Palestinian security official told Al-Monitor that Fayyad is suspected by Abbas of using his foundation for money laundering purposes, as well as exploiting the donations received by the foundation for his political purposes through coordination with Dahlan, who was expelled from Fatah. “These two are trying to return to the Palestinian political scene by carrying out a bloodless coup against President Mahmoud Abbas with the support of regional and international players,” the official told Al-Monitor.

The 80-year-old Fatah leader is 10 years into a five year term after plans to hold a new election have been repeatedly kicked down the road.

Officially, the delay of the election is because of disagreements between Hamas, Fatah, and other Palestinian groups, such as Islamic Jihad. But in reality, Abbas, Israel, and the international community fear that Hamas has a good chance of winning the election and taking over the West Bank.

Abbas has now appointed his close aide, Saeb Erekat, as the new secretary general of the PLO instead of Abed Rabbo. Erekat has been the Palestinian chief negotiator since the beginning of the Oslo process and has always been a member of the inner circle of the Abbas/Arafat clan. The appointment strengthened Erekat’s chances of eventually becoming head of the PA.

Israel, however, doesn’t see Erekat as a trustworthy partner because of his reputation as a pathological liar. At the beginning of June, Egypt, Israel, and the United States reportedly organized a secret security meeting in Cairo to discuss Abbas’s successor as president of the Palestinian Authority. Among those attending were Dahlan and Majid Faraj, head of the General Intelligence of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

The move no doubt exacerbated Abbas’ fears that there is a conspiracy to replace him.

He could be right.

Abbas’ policy of unilateral measures and non-cooperation with Israel has not brought the desired result of the establishment of a Palestinian state without a final status agreement. The policy has, to some extent, succeeded in putting more international pressure on Israel, but has not brought a peace agreement any closer. In addition, Abbas has not succeeded in improving the economy in the territories under his control, despite massive foreign donor support, and he has not put an end to the vicious intra-Palestinian conflicts.

It is therefore possible that the Europeans and the U.S. have come to the conclusion that it is time to replace Abbas with Fayyad or Dahlan. Fayyad is the darling of the international community and Dahlan is very popular among Palestinians.

What we could expect next is a switch from the efforts to reach a solution via the United Nations to yet another attempt to restart the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, perhaps after a change at the top of the PA leadership.

As for Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has repeatedly signaled his willingness to return to the negotiation table. The Times of Israel reported Tuesday that settlement activity has been effectively frozen by the new Israeli government. This could be a move meant to show Netanyahu is serious about his desire to restart the negotiations with the Palestinians.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth