Trump Pushes On!

In an online post I came across, the writer described President Donald Trump as “inept.” This man sounds like a puppet of the Democratic Party, using its manifesto of, “repeat a lie enough times,” and it will be believed.

If Trump is inept, how would Einstein be regarded – dumb ? Trump has an IQ of 156, giving him the highest IQ of any living president. He exemplifies persistence and leadership. He is reasonable, just, and energetic. You will not see him kneeling before the King of Saudi Arabia, but you will see him hand a bill to Mexico’s Enrique Peña Nietol for the burden his “citizens” have put on our education and health care systems.

Trump is a passionate patriotic America who upholds our values. He will not act as  if America is perfect, however he will not see America as a failure, as did our former President.

Democrats have tried to disrupt him at every turn, dragging on his appointments, accusing him of everything from a sleeper agent to a sell-out politician to the Russians. Over 90 percent of the press despises him. Countless degrading articles defaming him have been published over the past several months without a positive outlook on his leadership capabilities involving trade, economics, and jobs.  For example, Ford retaining and creating 7,000 jobs made the United Auto Workers union ecstatic.  Also, companies relocating or staying in the U.S. is just one more example of his business acumen serving him and our citizens well.

My question to that author is how can an incompetent or inept person be a successful business trail blazer, win an election where the media was against him, garner over 300 electoral votes, turn Democratic voters into Republican voters, and take the majority of counties in the United States?

The author of the condescending article cites the U.S. Constitution as the base of his argument against President Trump, but unfortunately grossly misunderstands the document and the intention of our Founding Fathers.

Let me illustrate multiple points.

No. 1: That “The Wall” will be built, the executive order is signed and bids are coming in.

No. 2: Trump got a 90-day period to vet refugees from the same list of countries the Obama administration chose.

No. 3: He is not against immigration, only those who enter the country illegally, and wants to deport criminals and gang members.

No. 4: Many generals, admirals, diplomats and scholars have praised him for his military competence and logistical skills.

No. 5: Trade has been one-sided in favor of our trading partners; the days of wine and roses are over for them.

No. 6: He is a fierce supporter of the Constitution, especially of the First, Second and Fifth Amendments, whereas Democrats wish to change many of them, especially the First and Second.

The writer’s last sentence praised the Constitution, believing it will save us from President Trump while Democrats and President Obama want to do away with it.

I say to all, this is nonsense. Go Trump, Go.





The Paris Accords Withdraw

This is the post excerpt.

First lets start off with what we know by definition. An accord defined by Oxford is, an official agreement. A treaty is defined by Oxford as a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.  In the context of The American Constitution,  a treaty is an agreement proposed by the President to the senate, the senate then votes on the treaty and if two thirds of the senate vote in favor of it, it is an official treaty. The Paris Accords or Paris Agreements are not a treaty. They were never ratified by our senate. Instead, they were agreed upon by an executive order issued by Former President Barak Obama.


This is what the Agreement meant to the United states, but there is also the matter of what was in the Accords and what it obligated or didn’t obligate nations to do. The Accords are not at all enforceable; they are non-binding, they have no punishment for failure to meet standards and have no legal authority in the United States because it was only ratified by 147 out of 197 countries who signed it, and by no surprise it was never brought before the US senate, therefor making it non binding.  The Accords never outlined any specific actions countries are to take. The Accords only listed goals like keeping greenhouse emissions down, pursuing efforts to limit temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2025, and keep global temperature “well below” 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. They also had monetary “requirements” like “climate financing” and the Green Climate Fund. “Climate Financing” encourages countries who are contributing the most to the accords, like the United States, to pay countries who can not or do not contribute as much. This could mean that the US pays China, who is not pushed to meet all of the energy reduction policies as the US is, to help them lower their CO2 emissions (as if China needed any monetary help). The Green Climate Fund is the money behind the Accords, this is where all of the nations payments go towards. The Green Climate fund or GCF is worth approximately 2.2 billion USD and the US has payed 1 billion USD or around 45.5% of the ENTIRE fund’s worth.

Now getting back to Thursdays events, current President Donald Trump said in a briefing that The United States will back out of the Paris Climate Accords. Not to copy him but let’s back up a bit, the US must stay in the Accords for 3 years and as of now 1 year has passed leaving 2 more. Also, it will take approximately 1 year to formally withdraw and exit. That is if everything is done “by the books”. However, I am betting that because POTUS is not a “by the books” kind of guy, he will stop paying and ignore what the US has already said they would put forth and simply go along business as usual until the US can formally leave. A political move I find intriguing and gutsy.

All of that is good and well, yet I do have some problems with the way all of this has been handled. President Trump said that the US is withdrawing from the Paris Accords, instead President Trump should have said that he wants to renegotiate the deal.  In doing this, the US could have withheld payments like every other country in the Accords until we can get a better deal done, one that makes all countries pay fairly. I believe that President Trump should have been able to get this done, after all he knows The Art Of The Deal. Also, saying that would have been beneficial in three ways. First,  it would NOT have given reason for people to attack him saying he is anti-environment and a global warming skeptic. Second, despite the media attention Trump said, “I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers.” Mr. Trump is obviously open to stopping climate change, but in his speech he should have hit harder on that so more of the American people know what he is willing to do. Lastly, President Trump listed off some statistics that were done by the EPA.  These stats say that the US will loose 3.3 trillion USD in GDP by 2040 and that 2.7 million jobs will be cut.  He also mentioned that some industries could be reduce by 84% if the accords stayed in place. Although, he forgot to mention new industries emerging in the clean energy business and added jobs in solar and renewable energies.

Overall, I believe that this was a very difficult decision for the President to make, even though I think it could have been handled better and easier, it was ultimately the right decision

Patrick Englehart