Soros-funded, weaponized “environmentalists” rage on President Trump while worshiping Obama and Hillary.

Weaponized environmentalists are as phony as today’s “feminists” and groups who claim that Black Lives Matter to them. The green idiot army is driven by MSM programmed notions about Global Warming and Obama’s slyly cordoning off public land under the guise of caring about the planet.

As with “feminists” and BLM, the group is nothing more than anti-Trump working mindlessly on behalf of everything and everyone they claim to hate.

Here’s 17 reasons why “environmentalists” need to chill:

1) Hillary-worship is a one way street.

She secretly scorns “radical environmentalists.”

Not all Left-leaners liked Hillary. Sanders and Stein supporters knew Hillary collaborated with large corporations and wouldn’t blink an eye to rape our environment and sell our resources to the highest bidder for personal gain.

However, most environmental groups have been hijacked by George Soro’s dirty green money and became purely pro-Hillary and anti-Trump organizations. So if environmentalists want potential donors to take their cause seriously they’re going to have to distance themselves from weaponized groups such as Greenpeace and create their own bipartisan groups.

If green Hillbots think she’d be their BFF had she “won” the election, they’d be wrong. In a pesky leaked email from Wikileaks Hillary said “radical environmentalists” should “get a life” and that she supports fracking, natural gas, nuclear energy and the Keystone Pipeline. So the first thing greenies gotta do is get a grip. Trump is no more a threat to the environment than Hillary would have been. It’s quite probable that he is far less of a threat.

To go one step further-Sanders supporters need to reconsider their fantasy about the ol’coot protecting the environment for two reasons 1) He sold out to Globalist interests by supporting Hillary even though he knew she stole the nomination from him and 2) It will be explained that “concern” for our environment here in the US does not translate one single bit to concern for the planet’s environment.

“Green Party” candidate Jill Stein pushed for a recount that would only benefit pro-TPP Globalist Hillary.

One thing seems certain-sincere environmentalists cannot trust the Left.

2) The TPP

Hillary and Tim Kaine were chomping at the bit to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership. The TPP would have spelled death to our environment- and especially to our food chain.

The Bill was crafted in secret by 600+ banks and corporations, including Big Pharma. It was so secret that Congressmen were not allowed to view or disclose contents of the Bill. The Left’s Obamagod allowed this to develop under his watch.

However, some of what we do know is that Monsanto had a large part in penning it. Monsanto is the Anti-Christ of the environment, infamous for disasters such as Agent Orange and Round-Up. Monsanto developed and pushes GMO’s. Part of the Bill would have removed legislation regarding aggressive GMO expansion and food labeling laws. In addition, the Bill would have made it nearly impossible to sue large corporations for damages.

The first major move President Trump made was to tear up the TPP. Sincere environmentalists should have at least been appreciative-if not awestruck.

3) Open Borders

Hillary’s “dream of open borders” sounds lofty to those who think that unsustainable immigration is a noble cause. But of course, it was a globalist initiative- a social engineering program designed to destroy unique cultures, enact a massive wealth redistribution scheme and a One World Government.

The recently deceased “father of globalization,” Peter Sutherland remarked, “the European Union should “be doing its best to undermine” the sense of national “homogeneity” in Britain and Europe, in order to pave the way for multicultural societies.” Of course the US was next in line to join the globalist initiatives.

Not only would unlimited immigration implode our economy and import terrorists to annihilate the US, it would wreak havoc on our environment by increasing fuel consumption, adding to the pollution of the air and water, and swelling up landfills.

And if environmentalists don’t see the harm in “helping” others to live a life of poverty, squatting on benches surrounded by shopping carts full of refuse on urine soaked sidewalks, they need to take a stroll in LA.

The miles and miles of homeless and their trash hoards are biohazards. Elected officials in Denver and San Francisco have decriminalized defecating in public. The once beautiful city of San Francisco offers “poop maps” to pedestrians so they can avoid areas that are Hellholes of disease-spreading human waste-arguably one of the worst types of pollution there is.

4) “Global Warming”

Environmentalists would do well to stop demonizing “Climate Change Deniers” and understand that no one in their right mind-including the most Conservative of Conservatives-wants to see our environment destroyed. We do need to work cooperatively for solutions.

What we are “denying” is unproven science that made the likes of Al Gore a multi-millionaire by spreading fake news, junk science and Pole-melting hysteria. We are denying scientific conclusions that were skewed per Obama’s orders in order to fork over billions of dollars a year to the UN when it was universally agreed that the Paris Accord would do little to lower the earth’s temperature.

The Accord would have destroyed American jobs and production. We would have sacrificed our own energy production to lean on other countries’ resources who would not be shackled with regulation-free to pollute the earth at will. What a massive con job.

“Global Warming” is admittedly a UN-driven plan/scam for wealth distribution.

The Climate Depot quoted 2 key players who revealed the “green” motive.

“Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Therefore, weaponized “environmentalists” should be grateful that President Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord. The money would only have drained our coffers, while allowing foreign countries to continue spewing toxins into the environment. We can use the money to develop solutions for clean energy.

Clean air, clean water. What a concept.

If Global warming is man-made then the only solution is to have clean water and clean air. So why not just jump into the solution? President Trump promised us that we’d have clean air and water. There’s no need to hand our money over to the UN. For nothing. He even donated his first check of $78,000 to the Park Service.

5) Hillary supported the Pipeline

Not one to miss an opportunity to trash her political opponent, Hillary was surprisingly quiet during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests at Standing Rock.

Of course she was quiet. She was all for the pipeline. And it was right before the election. Talk about awkward.

Even Liberal multi-author blog HuffPost described her response to cries for support as “lukewarm…shallow and dismissive.”

After a deafening stretch of silence, she said,

“… it’s important that on the ground in North Dakota, everyone respects demonstrators’ rights to protest peacefully, and workers’ rights to do their jobs safely.”

The most memorable part of the DAPL protests had to be the mountains of filth and waste that wannabe “environmentalists” left at Standing Rock. It took months to clean up that disaster.

Sadly, the DAPL has had some leaks already. Obviously there needs to be improvements. Ironically, one improvement will have to be security-to protect the pipeline and the surrounding area from mentally warped “environmentalists.”

The height of insanity-some wannabes have purposely damaged the pipeline. Their way of thinking is that ecoterrorism is justified as a means of protesting climate change and fossil fuels. Clearly their priority is posing and fueling an addiction to outrage. No one who really cares about the environment would ever purposely leak oil and harm fragile ecosystems and wildlife.

6) Hillary-Uranium One

You simply cannot sell nuclear materials to nations who have no oversight and/or who are avowed enemies of the US and call yourself an environmentalist. I’m all for Uranium Production and I think it’s great for America. However, I don’t understand why we have to share our Uranium with everyone else? It doesn’t make sense to me and it seems stupid.

Hillary sold off 20% of our rare uranium reserves to Russia for her own personal gain. Thanks to her Uranium One deal there would be extra pollution involved in transporting it to Russia. There would be extra pollution involved in transporting it back to the US. We are already importing uranium that we need, and we would have to buy back our own uranium to fill our needs.

Additionally, it is likely that some 25% of that uranium made it’s way to customers in Western Europe and Asia. Aside from the pollution from all that transportation and burning fuel in countries with little to no oversight, there’s the additional threat of nuclear weapons-very, very bad for the environment.

7) Think globally. Act globally.

If environmentalists are going to be concerned about global warming, it’s not enough to #Resist energy initiatives that impact the US. Global is global.

It’s noble to care about the planet, but if the US is shackled from producing energy, not only will someplace else on the planet be disrupted, destroyed and polluted by harnessing the energy, there’s all the extra carbon emissions involve in transporting it back here. The Paris Accord would insist that the US would have to comply with strict standards of production while other countries who’d produce energy-and send it back to us-would be free to belch out all the fumes and waste they’d please.

8) Nuclear War-North Korea/Iran/Russia

Yes, nuclear war is very, very, very bad for the environment.

Yet Hillary and Obama were itching to start a nuclear war with Russia. As she blamed them for the alleged DNC hack she said that such actions should be met with “military response.” The chronic finger pointing and demonizing of Russia was not only embarrassing, but downright disturbing.

However, I’ve come to believe that given the benefits that Obama and Hillary’s energy policies would have for Russia, all that hostility was a ruse. It would only benefit Russia to have Hillary elected. By shackling America in “green” policies, she and and Obama were fast-tracking Russia to be the number one global energy superpower. After the election, Hillary could have whipped out another “reset” button and won a Nobel Peace Prize for “restoring” relations with Putin.

At any rate, it was the policies of Obama, Bush and Bill Clinton that enabled North Korea to grow into the nuclear threat we now face. It is through the policies of the Left’s “environmental Obamagod” that Iran was able to grow into the nuclear threat that it is today.

All the bans on offshore drilling and declaring national parks off limits don’t mean diddly if your country is nuked by those who loudly vow to destroy us. Nuclear fallout from an attack or catastrophe presents a grave danger to human life for 1-5 years and renders an area inhabitable and lethal to wildlife for decades after the fact. The ongoing radiation of nuclear half-life can last for up to billions of years.

Very, very, very bad for the environment.

9) Wildlife-shredding windpower

Who knows-maybe the Left doesn’t like bald eagles because they represent America and have white heads- so they must be racist.

Kidding aside, Obama gave the green light to wind-farmers to slaughter American bald eagles. Soros funded “environmentalists” didn’t make a peep.

Fox News reported,

“The Obama administration…finalized a rule that lets wind-energy companies operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years – even if means killing or injuring thousands of federally protected bald and golden eagles.

Under the new rule, wind companies and other power providers will not face a penalty if they kill or injure up to 4,200 bald eagles, nearly four times the current limit. Deaths of the more rare golden eagles would be allowed without penalty so long as companies minimize losses by taking steps such as retrofitting power poles to reduce the risk of electrocution.”

The Audubon Society stated that wind energy causes hundreds of thousands of bird deaths a year. Imagine if President Trump gave the thumbs up to that slaughter.

The Left howled when President Trump stated that wind turbines would kill birds. Fossil fuels would kill so many more, they said. It’s less birds than are killed by house cats, they said. Typically they knee-jerked into Trump-hate rather then acknowledge that there’s a tragic problem with wind power that needs to be fixed.

It’s not just birds that are affected. Bats that are crucial for our ecosystem also die a cruel and horrific death as they are caught in the blades of wind turbines. It is estimated that more than 600,000 bats die this way each year.

10) Yucca Mountain

Since 1987 President Trump’s predecessors kept kicking the radioactive can down the road. Yucca Mountain was slated as a nuclear burial facility to house radioactive rods from nuclear energy plants.

He slated $100 million dollars to complete construction of the facility. Dems pushed back. However, if the rods are not disposed of properly they represent a nuclear threat of catastrophic proportions to our environment. Democrats could work with President Trump to bury these deadly fuel rods. But they prefer to play politics and invite environmental disaster.

As mentioned before-nuclear war and disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are very, very bad for the environment.

As with prisons, everyone needs facilities such as Yucca, but “not in my backyard.” Sure, that’s understandable. We all feel that way.

However, there’s something very wrong with that argument. When nuclear disasters occur, the radioactive waste is in everyone’s back yard.

The 1986 the Chernobyl disaster covered all of Europe in a radioactive plume.Scandinavia was badly affected. The effects are still being felt, as scientists have found that forest fires release lingering radioactivity from the soil.

The nuclear waste from Fukushima traveled to the West coast of the US. CNBC reported that “Experts say that we’ll see the effects for decades to come.” The plant is still leaking.

President Trump wants to address this inherited nuclear waste problem rather than let it sit like a ticking time bomb. So who is worse for the environment? Someone who wants to protect it or those who play Russian Roulette with nuclear waste?

11) Solar energy

Solar energy sounds great, but production of the panels wreaks havoc on the environment. Whilst the long term help they provide for people, through an inverter service center or other sources, is very important, National Geographic explained, “Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar’s ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxins.”

In addition to the environmental hazards posed by solar panel production, “green” electric cars are also working through some kinks. The batteries for those cars take a toll on the planet. In order to produce the batteries, it is necessary to mine raw and highly toxic materials such as cobalt, lithium and nickel. Another problem is that the car charging stations often receive their power from dirty sources.

It’ll probably all work out. The point is that there is currently no energy source that can be harnessed that does not impact the planet.

12) Clean is green.

Scott Pruitt’s EPA has already cleaned up 7 Superfund sites.

The Left is disputing the success, citing that a lot of the work had been done under Obama. That may be true, but in less than a year Pruitt’s EPA saw the projects through to a quick completion and is eager to clean up the rest at a much faster clip than under the Obama Administration.

He’s not exactly the environment-hater they’re making him out to be.

The mission of the Trump Administration under Scott Pruitt is to create energy independence while being stewards of the environment.

The National Review reported his philosophy.

“Stewardship, Pruitt says, is making responsible use of our national blessings, including our natural resources: “Feed the world and fuel the world,” he says, over and over. But the Left – and the EPA, which has long been dominated by it – is not interested in stewardship. It’s interested in prohibition, in a lot of Thou shalt and a whole heck of a lot more Thou shalt not. “You have two different approaches, two different worldviews, two very different sets of assumptions,” Pruitt says.

13) Flint Michigan

How quickly the Left has forgotten that the Flint Michigan water crisis occurred under Obama’s watch. While Obama did earmark money to clean up the disaster, President Trump released $100 million to Flint immediately upon taking office.

MSM glossed over it because it was positive in terms of bipartisanship and it also benefited a largely black community. Terrible for the narrative.

14) Saudis

Hillary-accepted $10 to $25 million dollars from Saudis.

Given her track record for empowering other nations in their quest for global energy dominance at our expense, it is likely that we would continue to be dependent on Saudi oil and spew the additional energy/pollution involved in importing it.

15) Israel

Obama, Hillary, and the Left call President Trump Hitler, but it is Trump who stuck his neck out for Israel. It is the Democrats and RINOs who hate Jews, promote BDS and canoodle with Israel-hating terrorists.

It may be no coincidence that under Obama’s and Hillary’s watch, Iran and the Middle East ratcheted up violent rhetoric calling for the destruction of the tiny country the size of New Jersey.

War almost always turns out to be a money grab.

Israel used to bemoan their dependence on the oil rich Israel-hating nations that surround them. However, the discovery of the the Tamar and Levithian fields of natural gas changed all that. Israel has been blessed with energy reserves that will last for the next 25 years as well as offer a stream of income from selling abroad.

In addition a discovery of rock containing oil holds the promise of Israel pumping 50,000 to 100,000 barrels of oil a day.

Obama’s and his would-be predecessor Hillary supported Iran over Israel. Together they created, armed and funded ISIS. Under Obama’s watch anti-antisemitism masked as anti-Zionism and the BDS movement ballooned to levels across our nation that rival Kristallnacht.

Meanwhile, Obama couldn’t fork over billions of dollars to Iran fast enough.

If Iran succeed in killing the Jewish state, who would grab Israel’s natural gas fields and the oil producing rock?

President Trump is so pro-Israel that he made the bold move to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol. Without shedding one drop of blood, who would Israel rather sell their natural gas or oil to now?

Not that we’ll need it. It looks like we’ll soon have plenty of our own.

16) Lefties dreg up Deep Water Horizon to #Resist offshore drilling

However, in doing so, they remind those who are “missing Obama” that the 2010 BP Oil spill in the Gulf region happened under Obama’s watch and he reacted with his typically flaccid nonchalance.

The “Deep Water Horizon” oil rig explosion killed 11 and injured 17 others. Oil gushed into the Gulf waters for close to 86 days.

Pre-President-Trump-hating Rolling Stone crushed Obama for inviting the crisis as well as his reaction to it. They placed the blame squarely on his bony shoulders for not resolving the issue of corruption and lack of oversight in the industry under George W., even though he had promised to do so while running for office.

As President Trump is seeking to expand offshore oil drilling there is naturally push-back from Democrats and anyone who cares about the environment. What they don’t understand is that we all care about the environment. No one wants filthy air or a damaged ocean. But we do have to look at the bigger picture.

The bigger picture requires looking at the entire planet when you talk about global anything. In other words. Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and India are also part of the globe. The Left wants to fuel their cars and heat their homes just so long as it isn’t in their own fenced and gated back yards.

As long as they don’t see production the wannabes can make believe it all happens by magic and wave their cute little signs pretending to care about the planet.

God forbid that we should have another massive oil leak due to the expansion.

However, we can be fairly assured that President Trump would respond in a much more concerned and aggressive manner than Obama did in 2010. Obama was widely criticized for taking “too cool” of a reaction to the spill, and just going about his daily business. Additionally he kept the public in the dark for weeks.

The Pre-Trump-hating NY Times reported,

“The Obama administration failed to act upon or fully inform the public of its own worst-case estimates of the amount of oil gushing from the blown-out BP well, slowing response efforts and keeping the American people in the dark for weeks about the size of the disaster, according to preliminary reports from the presidential commission investigating the accident.”

17) “We’ll make the robots too”

President Trump responded to concerns about automation taking over jobs during a NY Times interview in 2016. “We’ll make the robots too,” he said.

The business genius is anything but “insane. ” He has turned our economy around in less than a year in spite of fierce opposition and Obama’s carefully laid groundwork for the destruction of the US. We can be confident that he has already calculated possible spills.

No doubt he will find ways to create jobs and industries designed to clean up the spills, such as MIT’s invention of reusable “nanopaper” that can sop up oil. Argonne National Laboratories have invented an “oleo sponge” that can soak up oil. Both the oil and the sponge can be reused.

President Trump has just announced that he will unleash technology that is typically withheld from the public. So it’s not a stretch that he will embrace all technology that will save the planet as well as our economy.

Ironically, environmentalists have been touting alternative energy for the last 50 years or more. It was under the watch of all former Presidents that technology was suppressed in favor of big lobby money, including the oil industry. This isn’t all bad though. Think of it this way. The more attention that is placed on the oil industry, the more people who will be turning to places like EnergyFunders to find out how to best invest in oil, (https://www.energyfunders.com/blog/whats-the-best-way-to-invest-in-oil/). And who doesn’t want to do this when they get the chance? It’s very likely that a lot of people are considering it now.

Planet VS Politics

Sincere environmentalists need to work together for the common good-not to be an arm of George Soros and the NWO Globalists.

If wannabes could shake off the programmed Trump-hate they’d realize that he loves his children, his grandchildren and his country. He wants our country to be financially solvent as well as pristine for future generations.

We need to heal and thrive financially-and that requires energy independence. We can then be on the forefront of technology to clean our environment as well as to support initiatives for clean energy production.

Your thoughts? Comment below!


Salon-Wikileaks-Hillary remarks about “radical environmentalists”

Breitbart-Peter Sutherland “father of globalization”

Corporate Research Project-Monsanto rap sheet

Daily Wire-poop map

Climate Depot-“Global Warming=wealth redistribution

Fox-Climate Change=wealth redistribution

National Review-Obama billions don’t help climate change

Indian Country Today-Hillary response to Standing Rock

HuffPost-Hillary response to Standing Rock

Des Moines Register-activists damage DAPL

Daily Caller-activists damage DAPL

Newsweek-North Korea is not President Trump’s fault but Obama/Bush/Bill

Sydney Morning Herald-nuclear half life

Fox-Obama OK’s eagles killed in wind turbines

Popular Science-bats killed in wind turbines

Chernobyl fallout map

Forbes-BP spill update

NYTimes-Obama response to BP Oil Spill

HuffPo-BP clean up may have made things worse

Scientific American-nanopaper

National Review-Scott Pruitt

Environment Protection Agency-Flint, MI

USA Today-Flint, MI

The Robot Report-President Trump/NYT interview about robots

Newsweek-points to Bill,Obama and Bush

Scientific American-bats killed in wind turbines

Daily Caller-bats killed in wind turbines

Audubon Society-Birds killed by wind turbines

Union of Concerned Scientists-Impact of solar energy production

National Geographic-impact of solar energy production

Financial Times-impact of car battery production

Scientific American-sources for car charging stations can cause pollution

The Hill-Scott Pruit/Superfund sites

Wall Street Journal-Clinton Foundation millions from Saudis

Rolling Stone-Obama to blame for BP Oil spill in Gulf

NY Times-Obama’s reaction to oil spill

CNN-Oleo sponge-nice video to share

Huffpost-the sea bin

Financial Times-Israel’s natural gas

Time-Israel oil shale

Related Posts

When Green Goes Mean-Weaponizing Environmental Causes

Yucca Mt:”Liberals” Not FOR the Environment-Just Anti-Trump

You Will NOT Believe Who’s Got the Green Light to Kill Bald Eagles

5 Problems With President Trump’s Award of $100 Million to Fix Flint’s Water

The Dirty Truth About Coal, Obama, Hillary and…Russia

Link Between Uranium One and the Bundy Standoff?