With the disastrous Fall of Saigon Redux—that is, the Fall of Kabul—and the 2022 midterms fast approaching, it seems a good time for a cursory review of the past seven months of Joe Biden’s ill-fated presidency and of 2020 pre-presidential election discussions.

Befuddled Biden and his hapless administration have presided over the epically inept exit from Afghanistan, which is resulting in a humanitarian crisis, has left Afghans who helped the United States at risk, has left U.S. military weapons in the hands of terrorists, has increased the threat of terrorist acts on U.S. soil, has emboldened enemies,and has diminished our allies’ trust in America as a security partner.

The epically disastrous border crisis created by Biden policies and pronouncements dwarfs in magnitude of human suffering and in numbers anything that happened under the Trump administration. If the legacy press included ethical journalists, this would have been front page news every day until the Fall of Kabul. They would be rightly condemning Biden’s housing of children in overcrowded plastic pods, the release of COVID-positive illegals into the U.S., the record-setting number of deaths of immigrants along the Arizona border, the refusal of Biden to allow journalists to witness the housing crisis firsthand, and the failure of Kamala Harris to visit the border communities most affected by the crisis.

Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which incentivizes unemployment through the distribution of “free” money, has stymied an economy that should be surging.

Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement which will result in thousands of lost jobs, and he shut-down the Keystone XL pipeline which has resulted in thousands of lost jobs. The energy independence the Trump administration secured is dwindling, and inflation is increasing.

The frantically pursued $1 trillion infrastructure monstrosity and $3.5 trillion socialist budget resolution will plunge America deeper into the hellhole of debt Democrats (at times aided and abetted by spendthrift Republicans) have dug with their Bagger 288 excavator.

Biden removed the Hyde Amendment from his budget, an amendment which prevented taxpayer-funding of abortions, and he rescinded the Mexico City Policy, which prevented federal dollars from going to foreign non-profit organizations that provide abortions.

While deceitfully promising to be the unity president, Biden has promoted controversial and divisive social policies. He is promoting racism from California to the New York Island by embedding critical race theory in all government agencies. He seeks to end women’s privacy and sports through his support of science-denying “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices. And he endorses “trans”-cultic medical experimentation on children that mutilates healthy bodies in a perverse effort to cosmetically conceal their sex.

Biden is still cheerleading the 800-page Voter Chicanery Law, H.R. 1, which, according to the Heritage Foundation’s  Hans von Spakovsky, “is a dangerous and radical bill”:

It threatens the security, fairness, and integrity of our elections and restricts the First Amendment rights of Americans to freely engage in political speech and activity.

It would force state legislatures to hand over the redistricting process to unaccountable bureaucrats and institutionalizes racial and gender quotas.

It would also implement what amounts to a test to participate in redistricting that violates the associational and religious rights of the public.

And Biden supports the equally dangerous and deceptively named Equality Act, which would require that federal law recognize disordered subjective feelings and deviant behaviors as protected characteristics. Federal law would absurdly recognize homoeroticism and cross-sex masquerading as conditions that must be treated like race and biological sex, which are objective, 100 percent heritable conditions that are in all cases immutable, and carry no behavioral implications. (Troubling side note: The third-ranking U.S. House Republican, Elise Stefanik, chair of the U.S. House Republican Caucus, was one of eight U.S. House Republicans to vote for the Equality Act.)

Here are some questions I posed one month prior to the 2020 presidential election to GOP voters who opposed Trump. As we approach the mid-term elections, perhaps it’s a good time to revisit these questions:

• Do we really want to give more power to corrupt Democrats in Congress or give the presidency to a cognitively impaired recluse?

• Do we want to pay for the slaughter of babies in the womb, including full-term babies?

• Are we so blind we cannot see the danger to the republic posed by the appointment of activist federal judges and Supreme Court Justices who will legislate from the bench?

• Do we want the U.S. Supreme Court packed and the filibuster eliminated?

• Do we want to destroy any hope for school choice, restore federal funding for Critical Race Theory propaganda, and further empower leftist teachers’ unions?

• Do we want to return the U.S. to energy dependence on Middle East oil?

• Do we want taxes raised and businesses regulated into the ground?

• Do we want “free” college for all students, including illegal immigrants?

• Do we want law enforcement “reimagined” and defunded, ICE and the DEA eliminated, and borders opened?

• Do we want all women’s sports, locker rooms, restrooms, prisons, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, nursing home rooms, and dorm rooms sexually integrated?

• Do we want our First Amendment religious, speech, and assembly rights diminished through the “Equality Act”?

• Do we want government to protect the invasive, tyrannical, leftist behemoth Big Tech?

While Never-Trumpers and Christianity Today focused like laser beams on the morally and intellectually compromised Trump, calling into question the veracity of his claims of being a Christian, they deftly donned their blinders when turning their bobbling heads toward the equally morally and intellectually compromised Biden, whose claims to being a Christian are at least as dubious.

What too often became lost in all the frenzied virtue-signaling and tussling over which man is less worthy of the office was a discussion of whose policies and personnel will best serve the needs of America and Americans. The 2020 presidential election meant not just the replacement of Trump by Grampa Simpson but also the replacement of all members of the Trump administration with the gang that can’t shoot straight.

Remember all this as you make mid-term decisions.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Disastrous-Biden-Administration.mp3

---

Written by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt appeared on “Fox & Friends” April 13 and said, “Paris is something we really need to look at closely, because it’s something we need to exit, in my opinion.”

Why? “It’s a bad deal for America. China and India had no obligations under the agreement until 2030, we front-loaded all of our costs, at the expense of jobs.”

That’s a good start. It should resonate well with Americans who use electricity at home or work and gas or diesel in their cars — i.e., pretty much all of us.

But if Mr. Pruitt wants to expand public support, he needs to make six other important points.

First, Bjorn Lomborg, accepting climate-change advocates’ assumptions about how much warming comes from carbon dioxide, showed in a peer-reviewed study that implementing all provisions of all signers to Paris would prevent only 0.306 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming by 2100.

What would it cost? Unofficial estimates by the United States, European Union, Mexico and China amount to $739-$757 billion per year.

Those parties account for about 80 percent of signatories’ emissions reduction pledges. Other pledges would have similar costs per unit, implying something in the range of $185-$189 billion.

All told, $924-$946 billion. Per year. Every year from 2030 to the end of the century. “And that’s if the politicians do everything right. If not, the real cost could double,” Mr. Lomborg said.

So, for $65-$132 trillion, we might — if the alarmists are right — reduce global average temperature by a third of one degree by 2100. That’s $212-$431 billion per thousandth of a degree of cooling.

Second, if carbon dioxide’s warming effect is smaller than alarmists allege, two things follow: First, there’s not as much warming ahead to fear. Second, the cooling effect of reduced emissions will be less than thought, and the cost per unit higher.

Empirical evidence is mounting that the climate models on which climate-change advocates rely overstate carbon dioxide’s warming effect.

As University of Alabama climatologist John Christy testified before the U.S. House Science, Space and Technology Committee March 29, the models call for warming of 0.389 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. But weather balloon measurements find only 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, satellite measurements 0.211 degrees Fahrenheit and re-analyses of data from major weather centers around the world 0.221 degrees Fahrenheit.

Observed warming is about one-half to three-fifths what the models predict.

It’s not just “climate skeptics” who see this. Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, in an article meant to refute “climate skeptics,” reported that global temperature has been rising at 0.072-0.144 degrees Fahrenheit per decade — one-fifth to one-third the modeled rate.

This implies two things: First, carbon-dioxide emissions will drive only one-fifth to three-fifths as much warming as the models predict. Second, implementing the Paris agreement will reduce global temperature in 2100 by only one-fifth to three-fifths what Mr. Lomborg calculated, or 0.061-0.184 degrees Fahrenheit.

That raises the cost per thousandth of a degree of warming prevented to $353 billion to $2.16 trillion.

That’s money that could instead be used to provide electricity, drinking water, food, sewage sanitation, infectious disease control, health care, improved housing, expanded industry and other services to help the world’s poor far more than an imperceptible reduction in global warming.

Third, other empirical studies give even more reason to think carbon dioxide’s warming effect is even smaller.

The calculations above assumed that all observed warming 1979-2016 was caused by rising carbon-dioxide concentration. But carbon dioxide is probably not the sole or even primary driver.

In a peer-reviewed research report last fall, “On the Existence of a ‘Tropical Hot Spot’ and the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding,” Mr. Christy teamed up with meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and econometrician James P. Wallace III to show that “there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising” temperatures.

Their analysis showed that, after separating out the impacts of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, changes in solar activity, and the 1977 “Pacific Shift,” no additional warming trend occurred over the relevant period.

Consequently, no correlation remained between carbon dioxide (rapidly rising) and global temperature trends (flat except those driven by El Nino-Southern Oscillation).

Fourth, that study implies that the “Tropical Hot Spot” implied by computer climate models does not exist. Since that was crucial to EPA’s carbon dioxide “endangerment finding,” the finding was unjustified and should be reversed.

Fifth, whatever the risks from its tiny warming effect, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has positive effects.

Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. On average, every doubling of atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration causes a 35 percent increase in plant growth efficiency.

Consequently, plants increase their ranges and make food more abundant. The world’s poor benefit most. One survey of hundreds of studies concluded that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide 1960-2012 added $3.2 trillion in crop yields and would add nearly $10 trillion more through 2050.

Sixth and finally, since the endangerment finding was wrong, the EPA should reverse it. There is no reason to call life-giving carbon dioxide a pollutant, and the Paris climate agreement really is “something we need to exit.”

E. Calvin Beisner is founder and national spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

---

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to President Trump and his administration via the White House web-form to encourage them to get the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

---

This article was originally posted at The Washington Times