Malcolm Merkel and his band of fools

“Immigration Minister Peter Dutton confirmed that ‘close to 30 people’ seeking entry through the one-off settlement of 12,000 Syrian refugees had been disqualified on security grounds.”

The Weekend Australian June 2

That’s one quarter of one percent. With this kind of vetting, we might as well have open borders. Anyway, the text below is from Diana West: Playing Beheadings for Laughs. Reality might only affect one percent of the population directly, at the moment, even as everyone now huddles as clear of the line of fire as possible. This is what we are dealing with, the judge being the villain of the story. Today Mark Zuckerberg plays the judge and there are fools just like him on twitter and across the whole of the media. It seems the Australian government is just as stupid. Is the potential for disaster really all that invisible? Anyway, this is from Diana.

I remember a famous exchange Milosevic had with his judge. It was 2002, and, still, the closest Western consciousness came to beheading lay somewhere between the history of the French Revolution two centuries ago, and the absurdity of Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen.

Milosevic was trying to show what jihad looked like, which, in his war, was a beheaded Serbian soldier.

MILOSEVIC: These are crimes from the 26th of March, 1992, in Sijekovac.

The units (Mujahedin) crossed the Sava River and slaughtered the Serbs. Please put the big picture on the overhead projector.

That’s it. That’s what they did. That’s what the Mujahedin did, the ones we saw yesterday. And we saw Izetbegovic (leader of the Bosnian Moslems) reviewing them yesterday.

What’s the matter? Is it not on the screens?

JUDGE MAY: It’s on the screen. Do you want the next photograph shown?

MILOSEVIC: But I haven’t seen it on the screen. I only see you on the screen.

JUDGE MAY: It’s on our screen. Make sure you’ve got the right button.

MILOSEVIC: All right. All right. You don’t want to show this. You don’t want to show this to the public.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it is on our screen.

MILOSEVIC: It’s not on the screens that the public sees. Right. I see it on this screen now. But this internal screen only. So he is holding a head, the head of a Serb that he cut off. So those are the 20.000 Mujahedin that were brought to the European theatre of war through Clinton’s policy, and most of them remained there and some went to America and to other countries, and they went all around Europe. And then when they start beheading your own people in wars to come, then you will know what this is all about. …

Sometime later, I saw a photograph of a beheaded Serbian man online, maybe the same one Milosevic was trying to show the public. I had never seen anything more shocking, viscerally, in my life: a human head, eyes closed, in the hands of a monster in human form. At the same time, there was nothing more visecerally shocking than our own Daniel Pearl, also beheaded by Muslim “fighters” — or Nicholas Berg, with his slaughterhouse cries. Or Theo van Gogh, very nearly beheaded in Islamic ritual fashion on the streets of Amsterdam, although they tried not to let us know that; and more, in the continuing wars with Islam.

Certainly, our leaders still don’t know what this is all about. Beheading, however, is no longer the unthinkable act it used to be. It has now entered our cultural mainstream, courtesy something called Kathy Griffin, whose “comedy,” I am so happily out of it to say, I had not seen until today when her own Hollywood riff on the mujahudin who slaughtered the Serbs fifteen years ago, and Pearl, Berg, van Gogh and the murdered and violated rest, brought her to public eye holding aloft an extremely bloody representation of the head of President Trump. She thinks she has created something of value, a message, a moment, a point.

Her own sickness of spirit, though, is beside the point. I am afraid she has felt the pulse of the nation, circa 2017, and correctly judged Islamic ritual slaughter, once almost literally unthinkable in the West, to have become just another punch line.

Some people get it but most do not, partly because the truth is rabidly suppressed. The picture and quote from the Polish PM at the top is from here: Polish Prime Minister Warns Europe To “Get Off Its Knees” And Fight Islamist Threat. The indifference of the left to the suffering of others is possibly their most despicable trait.

This is the one that belongs to us

There was a time, maybe during the 1980s, that I took global warming as a hypothesis worth thinking about, but somewhere around then I concluded there was nothing in it and since then anyone who has taken it seriously has seemed absurd. Belief in AGW has seemed a dye marker for collectivists who see it as a way to power and wealth. And the more the evidence has piled up that AGW is plain wrong, the more astonished I have been at the strength of the conviction in those true believers that something must be done even if it impoverishes those with the lowest incomes both nationally and across the world.

The problem is that we treat such people as if they are sound of mind in believing this cult-like fantasy that humans are causing the planet to warm and that by ruining our standard of living in the West, something can be done to fix it. These people must have an immense absence of meaning in their lives to have gone on so long about such an empty issue, one that only causes harm to others. They have cost us trillions in lost wealth that will never be recovered, and handed power to charlatans across the world. This is our tulip craze, South Sea Bubble, Salem witch trials, madness of crowds. The future will think we must have been crazy and they will be right. Although they will no doubt have insanities of their own, this is the one that belongs to us.

Dogmatic atheism

A comment from another thread on “dogmatic atheism.

A mental deficiency which causes the belief that:

(1) there is no non-material reality that can influence this universe [i.e. God];
(2) i.e. this universe consists solely of matter and energy;
(3) however, the tiny and transient scrap of configured matter and energy that comprises the dogmatic atheist is capable of having things called “thoughts” which have some sort of validity other than merely being biochemical phenomena occurring within the material structure of the dogmatic atheist;
(4) in fact not only that but those thoughts are capable of validating the non-existence of anything in the whole universe other than the matter and energy capable (in principle) of physical verification of which the dogmatic atheist represents a minute evanescent sample.

Only a nanosecond’s logical thought should be necessary to perceive the psychotic megalomania in dogmatic atheism but somehow the dogmatic atheists themselves can’t seem to do so.

(I can fully understand an atheist who says that there’s no definite proof of God – the Christian scriptures would confirm that since they say we have to live partly by faith – and that therefore religious belief depends on perceptive judgement beyond fact and logic, and their own perceptive judgement precludes them believing. That is unarguable. But that kind of atheist doesn’t pretend to have a universal – dare I say Godlike? – knowledge of reality.)

Why does Instapundit cite Ronald Radosh?

Here is a piece of junk written by Ronald Radosh and put up on Instapundit. In every way possible he is an infiltrator from the left whose word on anything I would never trust. And it seems I am not alone in this belief given the comments that follow the post.

Sorry, but any piece that quotes the execrable David Frum as an authority isn’t worth the time

Good grief. What a load of garbage dressed up for PJ Media’s Never Trump faction. If I wanted to frequent BuzzFeed, I’d do that. This is the equivalent.

Every time you post Radosh, you lose more credibility. He is as lost to reason as Frum in his #nevertrump fever. Radosh has beclowned himself as much as the leftists marching in Berkeley.

So, Trump has our allies worried. Good.

major disagreement over how President Trump’s foreign trip was viewed in Western Europe – If only the US had friends or allies in western Europe that would make US give a damn.

Mr Green: Do you post this drek to make those of us who come to this blog but bypass PJ Media aware of the anti-Trump and Rhino bias of its contributors or do you think that an article such as this has merit?

The real fact is that the Germans need to be slapped around a lot. They’re screwed on energy policy, they are screwed on immigration policy, they are doing almost nothing right these days and they’re contributing peanuts to NATO. The only problem is they are in the middle. Poland and the Eastern European states are much more important to us now but Germany is stuck there in the middle.

The column makes some decent points right up until it sites David Frum and calls Anne Applebaum smart. Applebaum is an idiot and likely on the payroll of any number of foreign governments. The woman is just appallingly stupid and dishonest, but at least she is not Frum, who is even worse. Beyond that, I don’t know what universe these idiots live in where they could think after 8 years of Obama doing nothing but talk and never living up to a single commitment or threat, and spending all of his time attacking American allies and supplicating himself to our enemies that somehow it is Trump that is making America seem unreliable. How do people manage to convince themselves to believe such stupid things?

“Trump seems to have left the impression among our European allies that they might not be able to count on the United States.” You mean, count on us LESS than during the Lightbringer Administration? “When Trump met with the Saudis, he failed to even give a perfunctory statement that the U.S. hoped for improvement in its human rights record, emphasizing instead the country’s creation of a new center for fighting terrorism.” One of the great human rights is to be free from dying because of international terrorism. “….Trump’s apparent move away from our traditional European allies might prove not to be so wise. It certainly does not look like the restoration of American leadership.” It sure does from here. Rather than moving the US in the direction of mindless, self-destructive EuroWeenie Socialism, Trump has reclaimed the US position as Defender of Freedom and Beacon of Liberty; if the EuroWeenies choose not to follow, you can’t accuse the US of not leading. Mr. Radosh needs to get a life. I recommend http://www.getalife.com.

Ron Radosh being against anything Trump does? Now there is a surprise. And Stephen Green pushing a weak article because it confirms his own anti-trump bias? LOL. News alert: we’ve been growing apart from Europe since the fall of the cold war and Trump is just doubling down on Obama’s approach to Europe. We annoy them because we say it’s high time for them to put on their big boy tighty whities and take over more of their own defense instead of riding on the coattails of the exhausted American taxpayer? The horrors! Trump says that the biggest thing confronting the western world is ISIS and we’ll worry about all the other crap later? OMG, the villainy!!! A foreign policy that takes an “enemy of my enemy is my friend approach” and ignores all the bad stuff to succeed in the primary objective is hypocritical? Wow, that’s the first time that’s ever happened in the history of the world! Yeesh, Radosh reads like the hystrionics of a high school social studies essay.

Pundits like this one continue to write stupid BS like this about what Trump actually has or hasn’t done.

“Instead, Trump seems to have left the impression among our European allies that they might not be able to count on the United States.” Bull. Germany and France have bailed on the US at every opportunity since WWII, and they haven’t been paying their share of NATO costs. They don’t like Trump frankly pointing that out, but so what? An alliance is supposed to be a two-way deal, not charity. They’ll get over it.

Knowing who your enemies are is as important as knowing who are your friends.

The view of the deplorables on dumping the Paris Accords

This is Donald Trump’s doing. No one else would have had the strength of character and the will and determination. We know what the global elites think but what do the deplorables think? These are the top comments in the report in The Australian where they, along with the rest of the media, have rent their garments and put on sackcloth and ashes. This is what the rest of us think. The top comments, and they are all there. Not one has been left out.

I’ll tell you what it means if the US pulls out of the Paris Agreement. The end of the biggest scam perpetuated on Mankind. Deplorable No. 1

Its very hard to support something that you think is a grand lie, regardless of how much other people might want to believe it. Clearly none of the worlds “experts” have been able to convince Trump. Unsurprisingly more than 50% of the worlds people are similarly unconvinced because the empirical evidence just does not stack up. If it were actually warming then people might begin to trust the “models”. But when the temperature change is 0.1 of a degree in the last 100years while man made CO2 has more than doubled, and global greening as seen from space is accelerating, its a bit rich to expect everyone to buy in to a warming catastrophe. Islamist terrorism on the other hand, which many on the left deny, is an easy buy in, because our children are actually dying.

I think the author is talking about a different accord to the one signed about climate change. “Every country has pledged to lower its greenhouse emissions”. China agreed to no such thing. Tell the truth.

Jean-Claude is just worried that the Junket may be coming to an end.

The bankrupt economies of the EU will take the lead ? So exactly where will the money come from ?

Of course all the African basket cases have signed on – it’s free money after all !

What will happen is that people will regain their trust in politicians if Trump finally stands up to the greatest socialist wealth distribution scam of our time

Too many countries have bludged off the USA for too long. The Europeans, the biggest bludgers of the lot, expect Trump to follow their every direction, but he turned his back and they ridicule him. Why would anyone support someone that ridicules them. its time for the European bludgers to pay their way.

What will it mean? A surge in champagne sales to climate sceptics who know that there never was evidence that the Paris Climate Treaty was necessary and who know that the money, estimated at about $100 TRILLION by 2030, could be spent far more wisely.

Great News for the UN, now let’s hope Trump stops funding to the UN, that would be Utopia!

Donald Trump breaking all the political rules, following through on his election promises. If the left are up in arms you just know he is on the right track. Much like their hatred for the man who still and will again be our PM, mr Tony Abbott.

Australia needs to follow the USA and abandon the Paris Accord / Climate Alarmist Scam. There is no evidence of any problem with climate, now or in future. And climate changes naturally. There simply is no problem to fix. Australia needs to get out of the scam too. If that means dumping Turnbull – then so be it – no loss.

Why is it that there is a similar movement to reduce the rate of growth of the world’s population? It is, after all, at the heart of all of this planet’s environmental problems. What if there is not actually any global warming? What if, if there is, it is not actually caused by the 3% of total emissions that belong to humans. Something just doesn’t feel right about this entire environmentalist movement when they so blatantly disregard the obvious but latch onto things that are extremely complex and difficult to prove or disprove.

“Even the poorest countries in the world, including Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have signed up.” You mean the ones that are required to do nothing except accept the transfer of our hard earned wealth to them in the form of subsidies to help them transform to a “low-carbon” existence. Let’s see how that works if this Paris stupidity goes ahead. Swiss bankers are licking their lips.

What will happen to the Climate? If US stay in – NOTHING! If US pull out – NOTHING!

If climate change is “unstoppable” then what is the point in wasting tens of billions to try and stop it. Wouldn’t it be better to use that money to mitigate the effects of this “unstoppable” event. Trump is the only world leader with a practical common sense attitude to this, the rest are just expecting us to pay for their moral vanity and gesture politics.

So if Guterres says that climate change is “unstoppable”, why would the US decision matter? More hype.

What will happen if Trump quits Paris climate agreement? America will be well on its way to becoming great again, “that’s what will happen”! The climate change hoax was started by the late UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher all the way back in 1988 {See Google} Then in 2006 Al Gore revived the climate hoax again. Thatcher and Gore have one thing in common neither were scientists, they were both politicians. So if climate change was real then why did the politiciance knew about it and the scientist didn’t.? One thing for sure . Thatcher and Gore created a arket for every dog and cat to become climate scientists

I’m not surprised no one from the Australian put their name to this. The effect on the US leaving will be that they will stop chasing rainbows and have cheaper energy prices, the effect on the Europeans is that they will look even sillier that they already do, the UN will continue to look delusional and self serving and China will comply the the Paris Accord in the manner that they were always going to (not at all).

“Climate Change is undeniable” True. It has been going on for 100s of millions of years. “Climate change is unstoppable” Equally true. The equilibrium of the planet’s climate is in constant flux.””Climate Change provide opportunities that are unmatchable” Now that is probably the truest statement of them all. Although in a manner completely unintended by the speaker. The opportunities to graft,corruption and and rorting are indeed unmatchable.

“What happens if the US quits Paris”, many of us will laugh and ask Turnbull for our borrowed money back. No wonder he wanted Tony Abbott gone – so he could swan around Europe and give Paris a large cheque.

The climate hoax is now 3 decades old since Thatcher dreamt it up back in 1988.Yet 3 decades later they are building artificial military Islands ,in Dubai Holiday resorts at sea,but nobody are building sea walls to prevent their cities from dangerouse sea level rises. Why ? Beecause global warming ain’t happening that’s why

” Even the poorest countries in the world, including Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have signed up.” Of course they have, they get free money for it!

Trump should lead the way and should dump the Paris Agreement which was never ratified by Congress. But Turnbull will be down in the bottom of the garden with the fairies.

Good on Donald Trump, I truly hope he pulls out of this farce. Lets be real, the Paris conference was all about bullying countries to sign up to a global climate scam that basically funnels huge amounts of cash from the poor to the ultra rich. It is anti-democratic, destructive and trashes the sovereignty of every nation that participates. We should pull out of this agreement also, it has never been agreed to, voted on or ratified by the Australian people or our parliament and thus has no legal basis!!

The Paris accord is a sham and poorer countries of course sign up because there is lots of money in it for them. Stick to coal as it is the cheapest until someone invent better ways to reduce carbon into the atmosphere (if that is so bad). I totally back Trump and America on this and it was about time someone stood up to this socialist/left idea of climate change and making us feel guilty for advancing the world they so much enjoy. There are many scientists and economists who think that the Paris agreement is not smart but guess what, they don’t get a hearing by most of the press around the world.

UPDATE: This the kind of thing I abominate. It shows both a lack of understanding about how politics works and the unwillingness to acknowledge the enormous debt we owe to the American president for completely spurious reasons: Failure Of Paris Climate Deal Was Inevitable. How inevitable would it have been if Hillary had been elected, or even any of the other Republicans starting with Jeb Bush? It really shows the disgusting disregard for DJT who uniquely brought sanity back into this debate.

We’ll never have Paris

These are Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt’s speeches pulling out of the Paris Accord, but Scott’s comes first since what is most most extraordinary is Trump’s strength of character and purpose.

Thank you, Mr. President.  Your decision today to exit the Paris Accord reflects your unflinching commitment to put America first.

And by exiting, you’re fulfilling yet one more campaign promise to the American people.  Please know that I am thankful for your fortitude, your courage, and your steadfastness as you serve and lead our country.

America finally has a leader who answers only to the people — not to the special interests who have had their way for way too long.  In everything you do, Mr. President, you’re fighting for the forgotten men and women across this country.  You’re a champion for the hardworking citizens all across this land who just want a government that listens to them and represents their interest.

You have promised to put America First in all that you do, and you’ve done that in any number of ways — from trade, to national security, to protecting our border, to rightsizing Washington, D.C.  And today you’ve put America first with regard to international agreements and the environment.

This is an historic restoration of American economic independence — one that will benefit the working class, the working poor, and working people of all stripes.  With this action, you have declared that the people are rulers of this country once again.  And it should be noted that we as a nation do it better than anyone in the world in striking the balance between growing our economy, growing jobs while also being a good steward of our environment.

We owe no apologies to other nations for our environmental stewardship.  After all, before the Paris Accord was ever signed, America had reduced its CO2 footprint to levels from the early 1990s.  In fact, between the years 2000 and 2014, the United States reduced its carbon emissions by 18-plus percent.  And this was accomplished not through government mandate, but accomplished through innovation and technology of the American private sector.

For that reason, Mr. President, you have corrected a view that was paramount in Paris that somehow the United States should penalize its own economy, be apologetic, lead with our chin, while the rest of world does little.  Other nations talk a good game; we lead with action — not words.  (Applause.)

Our efforts, Mr. President, as you know, should be on exporting our technology, our innovation to nations who seek to reduce their CO2 footprint to learn from us.  That should be our focus versus agreeing to unachievable targets that harm our economy and the American people.

Mr. President, it takes courage, it takes commitment to say no to the plaudits of men while doing what’s right by the American people.  You have that courage, and the American people can take comfort because you have their backs.

Thank you, Mr. President.

And then this is Trump’s speech in which he not just gives the decision but lays out the reasoning anyone could understand.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  I would like to begin by addressing the terrorist attack in Manila.  We’re closely monitoring the situation, and I will continue to give updates if anything happens during this period of time.  But it is really very sad as to what’s going on throughout the world with terror.  Our thoughts and our prayers are with all of those affected.

Before we discuss the Paris Accord, I’d like to begin with an update on our tremendous — absolutely tremendous — economic progress since Election Day on November 8th.  The economy is starting to come back, and very, very rapidly.  We’ve added $3.3 trillion in stock market value to our economy, and more than a million private sector jobs.

I have just returned from a trip overseas where we concluded nearly $350 billion of military and economic development for the United States, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.  It was a very, very successful trip, believe me.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you.

In my meetings at the G7, we have taken historic steps to demand fair and reciprocal trade that gives Americans a level playing field against other nations.  We’re also working very hard for peace in the Middle East, and perhaps even peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  Our attacks on terrorism are greatly stepped up — and you see that, you see it all over — from the previous administration, including getting many other countries to make major contributions to the fight against terror.  Big, big contributions are being made by countries that weren’t doing so much in the form of contribution.

One by one, we are keeping the promises I made to the American people during my campaign for President –- whether it’s cutting job-killing regulations; appointing and confirming a tremendous Supreme Court justice; putting in place tough new ethics rules; achieving a record reduction in illegal immigration on our southern border; or bringing jobs, plants, and factories back into the United States at numbers which no one until this point thought even possible.  And believe me, we’ve just begun.  The fruits of our labor will be seen very shortly even more so.

On these issues and so many more, we’re following through on our commitments.  And I don’t want anything to get in our way.  I am fighting every day for the great people of this country.  Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord — (applause) — thank you, thank you — but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.  So we’re getting out.  But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair.  And if we can, that’s great.  And if we can’t, that’s fine.  (Applause.)

As President, I can put no other consideration before the wellbeing of American citizens.  The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.

Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.  This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.

Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.  This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need — believe me, this is not what we need — including automobile jobs, and the further decimation of vital American industries on which countless communities rely.  They rely for so much, and we would be giving them so little.

According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors:  paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal — and I happen to love the coal miners — down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent.  The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.

Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals.  As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does -– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.

For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13.  They can do whatever they want for 13 years.  Not us.  India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.  There are many other examples.  But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.

Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America — which it does, and the mines are starting to open up.  We’re having a big opening in two weeks.  Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places.  A big opening of a brand-new mine.  It’s unheard of.  For many, many years, that hasn’t happened.  They asked me if I’d go.  I’m going to try.

China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants.  So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement.  India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020.  Think of it:  India can double their coal production.  We’re supposed to get rid of ours.  Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.

In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers thse jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries.

This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.  The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement — they went wild; they were so happy — for the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage.  A cynic would say the obvious reason for economic competitors and their wish to see us remain in the agreement is so that we continue to suffer this self-inflicted major economic wound.  We would find it very hard to compete with other countries from other parts of the world.

We have among the most abundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty.  Yet, under this agreement, we are effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation — it’s great wealth, it’s phenomenal wealth; not so long ago, we had no idea we had such wealth — and leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and joblessness.

The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.  At 1 percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand, but at 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country — (applause) — will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts, our businesses will come to a halt in many cases, and the American family will suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a very diminished quality of life.

Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.  Tiny, tiny amount.  In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.

As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning:  “The reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”  The United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth.  We’ll be the cleanest.  We’re going to have the cleanest air.  We’re going to have the cleanest water.  We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs.  We’re going to grow; we’re going to grow rapidly.  (Applause.)

And I think you just read — it just came out minutes ago, the small business report — small businesses as of just now are booming, hiring people.  One of the best reports they’ve seen in many years.

I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers.  (Applause.)

So if the obstructionists want to get together with me, let’s make them non-obstructionists.  We will all sit down, and we will get back into the deal.  And we’ll make it good, and we won’t be closing up our factories, and we won’t be losing our jobs.  And we’ll sit down with the Democrats and all of the people that represent either the Paris Accord or something that we can do that’s much better than the Paris Accord.  And I think the people of our country will be thrilled, and I think then the people of the world will be thrilled.  But until we do that, we’re out of the agreement.

I will work to ensure that America remains the world’s leader on environmental issues, but under a framework that is fair and where the burdens and responsibilities are equally shared among the many nations all around the world.

No responsible leader can put the workers — and the people — of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage.  The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States, while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries, should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement:  It’s to give their country an economic edge over the United States.  That’s not going to happen while I’m President.  I’m sorry.  (Applause.)

My job as President is to do everything within my power to give America a level playing field and to create the economic, regulatory and tax structures that make America the most prosperous and productive country on Earth, and with the highest standard of living and the highest standard of environmental protection.

Our tax bill is moving along in Congress, and I believe it’s doing very well.  I think a lot of people will be very pleasantly surprised.  The Republicans are working very, very hard.  We’d love to have support from the Democrats, but we may have to go it alone.  But it’s going very well.

The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense.  They don’t put America first.  I do, and I always will.  (Applause.)

The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance.  You see what’s happening.  It’s pretty obvious to those that want to keep an open mind.

At what point does America get demeaned?  At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?   We want fair treatment for its citizens, and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers.  We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore.  And they won’t be.  They won’t be.

I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.  (Applause.)  I promised I would exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve America’s interests.  Many trade deals will soon be under renegotiation.  Very rarely do we have a deal that works for this country, but they’ll soon be under renegotiation.  The process has begun from day one.  But now we’re down to business.

Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund — nice name — which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments.  So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else.  Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.

The Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion — nobody else is even close; most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism.  That’s where they came.  Believe me, they didn’t come from me.  They came just before I came into office.  Not good.  And not good the way they took the money.

In 2015, the United Nation’s departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 billion per year as “peanuts,” and stated that “the $100 billion is the tail that wags the dog.”  In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020.  And nobody even knows where the money is going to.  Nobody has been able to say, where is it going to?

Of course, the world’s top polluters have no affirmative obligations under the Green Fund, which we terminated.  America is $20 trillion in debt.  Cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vital infrastructure.  Millions of our citizens are out of work.  And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us.  So think of that.

There are serious legal and constitutional issues as well.  Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives.  Thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.  (Applause.)  Our Constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it.  And I will.

Staying in the agreement could also pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly.  It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal.

The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time.  In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point — as bad as it is — not an end point.  And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability.  Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.

As President, I have one obligation, and that obligation is to the American people.  The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.  It is time to exit the Paris Accord — (applause) — and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country.

It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — along with many, many other locations within our great country — before Paris, France.  It is time to make America great again.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.  Very important.  I’d like to ask Scott Pruitt, who most of you know and respect, as I do, just to say a few words.

The global “elite” is a pack of fools

Chicken Little is an instructional manual. We’ll know in a few hours, but the pressure on the President who understands the underlying reality is extraordinary.

Trump to announce decision on climate change ThursdayFriday morning Australian time
Big Business Begs President to Stick With Deal…
Vatican sees exit as slap in face…

From the first of the stories.

Abandoning the pact would isolate the U.S. from a raft of international allies who spent years negotiating the 2015 agreement to fight global warming and pollution by reducing carbon emissions in nearly 200 nations. While traveling abroad last week, Trump was repeatedly pressed to stay in the deal by European leaders and the Vatican. Withdrawing would leave the United States aligned only with Russia among the world’s industrialized economies.

American corporate leaders have also appealed to the businessman-turned-president to stay. They include Apple, Google and Walmart. Even fossil fuel companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell say the United States should abide by the deal.

In a Berlin speech, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said that fighting climate change is a “global consensus” and an “international responsibility.”

“China in recent years has stayed true to its commitment,” said Li, speaking in Berlin Wednesday.

Trump’s predecessor, President Barack Obama, enacted the deal without U.S. Senate ratification. A formal withdrawal would take years, experts say, a situation that led the president of the European Commission to speak dismissively of Trump on Wednesday.

Trump doesn’t “comprehensively understand” the terms of the accord, though European leaders tried to explain the process for withdrawing to him “in clear, simple sentences” during summit meetings last week, Jean-Claude Juncker said in Berlin. “It looks like that attempt failed,” Juncker said. “This notion, ‘I am Trump, I am American, America first and I am getting out,’ that is not going to happen.”

Some of Trump’s aides have been searching for a middle ground – perhaps by renegotiating the terms of the agreement – in an effort to thread the needle between his base of supporters who oppose the deal and those warning that a U.S. exit would deal a blow to the fight against global warming as well as to worldwide U.S. leadership.

If he knocks it off Trump will be the Man of the Century not that he will ever get the credit.

Laughing your head off

The text below is from Diana West: Playing Beheadings for Laughs. Reality might only affect one percent of the population directly, at the moment, even as everyone now huddles as clear of the line of fire as possible. This is what we are dealing with, the judge being the villain of the story. Today Mark Zuckerberg plays the judge and there are fools just like him on twitter and across the whole of the media.

I remember a famous exchange Milosevic had with his judge. It was 2002, and, still, the closest Western consciousness came to beheading lay somewhere between the history of the French Revolution two centuries ago, and the absurdity of Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen.

Milosevic was trying to show what jihad looked like, which, in his war, was a beheaded Serbian soldier.

MILOSEVIC: These are crimes from the 26th of March, 1992, in Sijekovac.

The units (Mujahedin) crossed the Sava River and slaughtered the Serbs. Please put the big picture on the overhead projector.

That’s it. That’s what they did. That’s what the Mujahedin did, the ones we saw yesterday. And we saw Izetbegovic (leader of the Bosnian Moslems) reviewing them yesterday.

What’s the matter? Is it not on the screens?

JUDGE MAY: It’s on the screen. Do you want the next photograph shown?

MILOSEVIC: But I haven’t seen it on the screen. I only see you on the screen.

JUDGE MAY: It’s on our screen. Make sure you’ve got the right button.

MILOSEVIC: All right. All right. You don’t want to show this. You don’t want to show this to the public.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it is on our screen.

MILOSEVIC: It’s not on the screens that the public sees. Right. I see it on this screen now. But this internal screen only. So he is holding a head, the head of a Serb that he cut off. So those are the 20.000 Mujahedin that were brought to the European theatre of war through Clinton’s policy, and most of them remained there and some went to America and to other countries, and they went all around Europe. And then when they start beheading your own people in wars to come, then you will know what this is all about. …

Sometime later, I saw a photograph of a beheaded Serbian man online, maybe the same one Milosevic was trying to show the public. I had never seen anything more shocking, viscerally, in my life: a human head, eyes closed, in the hands of a monster in human form. At the same time, there was nothing more visecerally shocking than our own Daniel Pearl, also beheaded by Muslim “fighters” — or Nicholas Berg, with his slaughterhouse cries. Or Theo van Gogh, very nearly beheaded in Islamic ritual fashion on the streets of Amsterdam, although they tried not to let us know that; and more, in the continuing wars with Islam.

Certainly, our leaders still don’t know what this is all about. Beheading, however, is no longer the unthinkable act it used to be. It has now entered our cultural mainstream, courtesy something called Kathy Griffin, whose “comedy,” I am so happily out of it to say, I had not seen until today when her own Hollywood riff on the mujahudin who slaughtered the Serbs fifteen years ago, and Pearl, Berg, van Gogh and the murdered and violated rest, brought her to public eye holding aloft an extremely bloody representation of the head of President Trump. She thinks she has created something of value, a message, a moment, a point.

Her own sickness of spirit, though, is beside the point. I am afraid she has felt the pulse of the nation, circa 2017, and correctly judged Islamic ritual slaughter, once almost literally unthinkable in the West, to have become just another punch line.

Some people get it but most do not, partly because the truth is rabidly suppressed. The picture and quote from the Polish PM at the top is from here: Polish Prime Minister Warns Europe To “Get Off Its Knees” And Fight Islamist Threat. The indifference of the left to the suffering of others is possibly their most despicable trait.

On climate change Trump is acting as he was always going to

On “climate change” and much else, I have never understood the reluctance to support Trump from people who declare themselves on the right. So on climate change, let me point out that Trump has form. This was my post on March 14, 2016. There are few others assuming there are any others, who would have stood up to the mob the way he has done, and it’s only because he thinks they are idiots. But the politics here are brutal and very difficult to negotiate. There is much more about Trump in my The Art of the Impossible which will be launched in Melbourne next Tuesday. The details of the launch are here. And even if you can’t make it to the launch, you can still buy the book from here. The rest of this is from my post in March last year.
__________

trump on agw

To run for high office you have to at least pretend to care about global warming. There are too many voters on both sides, even on the Republican side, who would make disbelief in AGW the single issue that determined their vote. For me, belief in global warming is as clear a sign of anti-capitalist ideologically-driven wishful thinking as I would care to choose. It may be a reality, but it is one for which the evidence is virtually non-existent while the costs of trying to contain our carbon footprint so immense that skepticism is the only answer that makes sense. I therefore googled “Donald Trump and Global Warming” and the following article, from MSNBC, seems to be representative of his views. And what makes this article so fascinating is that the article is trying to prove that Trump really thinks acceptance of AGW is utterly without merit although he is now beginning to pretend that he actually thinks it is important even though he doesn’t really think so. The article was published in February. Here’s the start.

Something unexpected is happening in the Republican presidential field.

Leading GOP candidates once denied the reality of manmade climate change, but now they seem to be softening their posture and subtly embracing it.

Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have long pledged to deepen President Obama’s climate commitments if elected to office. The Republican candidates are still far from believers or political backers of the president’s agenda. But a close parsing of their comments suggest the party of no is becoming the party of maybe – or perhaps even the party of yes.

Take the case of Donald Trump, the billionaire contrarian and big winner of the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday. His denial of climate change has been a centerpiece of his act for years.

Naturally, this is taken as a sign of ignorance and a lack of seriousness about dealing with one of our most important contemporary problems. But even though he is now trying to be more political in how he expresses his views, the folks at MSNBC are not going to be caught out in accepting his more recent statements as his real beliefs.

In tweets between 2012 and early 2015, he called climate change a “con job,” a “canard,” a “hoax,” “bulls**t,” and a concept “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

Now, however, Trump wants to be president so has begun to reverse course.

But as his political star has risen, he’s changed his tune on global warming.

He’s walked back his wildest conspiracy theories and toned down his claims that cold weather somehow disproves global warming. He’s also retired some of his most incendiary language (“con job,” “canard”) and wrapped what remains in strong qualifiers.

In January, for example, after relentless mockery from the Sanders campaign, Trump told “Fox & Friends” that his tweet about climate change as a Chinese plot was a “joke.”

So what does Trump say now?

“Obviously, I joke,” he said. “I know much about climate change. I’d be — received environmental awards. And I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China.”

The Republican front-runner still uses the word “hoax,” deploying it on December 30 at a rally in Hilton Head, S.C. But he bookends it in un-Trump-like uncertainty. “A lot of it is a hoax,” he said, according to ThinkProgress, a left-leaning news site “I mean, it’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”

You can trace the change to September, when Trump delivered his most expansive comments on climate change. Speaking with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, he criticized Obama for trying “to solve a problem that I don’t think in any major fashion exists.”

And that is their last word on Trump. The rest of the article shows similar lack of belief on climate change by the other leading Republicans. Trump, however, has been the most consistent and hardline of the lot. Whatever he ends up saying from this point on, you may be sure what he really thinks is what he has most consistently said. If he thought global warming was a con job and bulls**t a year ago, there is nothing that has happened since to have changed his mind. You may be sure that if Trump becomes the candidate this will become a major issue in the campaign.

“With a sharp knife cut deeply into the middle finger of your left hand”

If even half of what you hear about leading Democrats is true, they are madder beyond belief. The picture is from an article on Podesta Spirit Cooking Emails Reveal Clinton’s Inner Circle as Sex Cult with Connections to Human Trafficking.

Clinton’s inner circle includes child traffickers, pedophiles, and now members of a “sex cult,” the recent Podesta emails from Wikileaks reveals.

An email to John Podesta reads, “I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place. Do you think you will be able to let me know if your brother is joining?”

During their sex cult practice, Spirit Cooking includes chanting,

With a sharp

knife cut deeply into the

middle finger of your

left hand

eat the pain.

You really would absolutely prefer none of this to be true, which is what may be the very thing that protects them since normal people would find this beyond belief. Even when you read it, and the source, you still won’t bring it into the conversation because even a suspicion that it’s true would end all trust in our institutional structures.

MORE ADDED ON APRIL 23, 2018: The video below is taken from here where there is much else.