Paris Climate Accords: The UN and All Those Special Nations

So, Trump is going to pull out ... the way the headlines express it, we must be leaving something sacrosanct ... like abandoning baby Jesus.

Yeah, nothing that simple or unimportant - this is colossal - with the US pulling out, the world will collapse.  With the US exiting the climate accords Obama just unilaterally forced us into less than a couple years ago ... and suddenly the fact Trump is canceling our involvement will make the world less safe.

I often wonder if writers truly believe the rubbish they publish, or do they try to convince themselves they are actually making the world a better placed.

So the following have ratified it -

AFGHANISTAN  - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ALBANIA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ALGERIA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ANDORRA

ANGOLA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

ARGENTINA

ARMENIA

AUSTRALIA

AUSTRIA

AZERBAIJAN - I can only wonder how they ratified!

BAHAMAS

BAHRAIN

BANGLADESH

BARBADOS

BELARUS

BELGIUM

BELIZE

BENIN

BHUTAN

BOLIVIA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

BOTSWANA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

BRAZIL

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM - I can only wonder how they ratified!

BULGARIA

BURKINA FASO

BURUNDI

CABO VERDE

CAMBODIA

CAMEROON

CANADA

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

CHAD

CHILE

CHINA

COLOMBIA

COMOROS

CONGO - I can only wonder how they ratified!

COOK ISLANDS

COSTA RICA

COTE D'IVOIRE

CROATIA

CUBA

CYPRUS

CZECH REPUBLIC

DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

DENMARK

DJIBOUTI

DOMINICA

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

ECUADOR

EGYPT

EL SALVADOR

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

ERITREA

ESTONIA

ETHIOPIA

EUROPEAN UNION*

FIJI

FINLAND

FRANCE

GABON

GAMBIA

GEORGIA

GERMANY

GHANA

GREECE

GRENADA

GUATEMALA

GUINEA

GUINEA-BISSAU

GUYANA

HAITI

HONDURAS

HUNGARY

ICELAND

INDIA*

INDONESIA

IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)

IRAQ

IRELAND

ISRAEL

ITALY

JAMAICA

JAPAN

JORDAN

KAZAKHASTAN

KENYA

KIRIBATI

KUWAIT

KYRGYZSTAN

LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

LATVIA

LEBANON

LESOTHO

LIBERIA

LIBYA

LIECHTENSTEIN

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBOURG

MADAGASCAR

MALAWI

MALAYSIA

MALDIVES

MALI

MALTA

MARSHALL ISLANDS*

MAURITANIA

MAURITIUS

MEXICO*

MICRONESIA* (FEDERATED STATES OF)

MONACO

MONGOLIA

MONTENEGRO

MOROCCO

MOZAMBIQUE

MYANMAR

NAMIBIA

NAURU*

NEPAL

NETHERLANDS

NEW ZEALAND (2)

NIGER

NIGERIA

NIUE*

NORWAY

OMAN

PAKISTAN

PALAU

PANAMA

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

PARAGUAY

PERU

PHILIPPINES*

POLAND*

PORTUGAL

QATAR

REPUBLIC OF KOREA

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

ROMANIA

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

RWANDA

SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS

SAINT LUCIA

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES

SAMOA

SAN MARINO

SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE

SAUDI ARABIA

SENEGAL

SERBIA

SEYCHELLES

SIERRA LEONE

SINGAPORE

SLOVAKIA

SLOVENIA

SOLOMON ISLANDS*

SOMALIA

SOUTH AFRICA

SOUTH SUDAN

SPAIN*

SRI LANKA

STATE OF PALESTINE

SUDAN

SURINAME

SWAZILAND

SWEDEN

SWITZERLAND

TAJIKISTAN

THAILAND

THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

TIMOR-LESTE

TOGO

TONGA

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

TUNISIA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

TURKEY - I can only wonder how they ratified!

TURKMENISTAN - I can only wonder how they ratified!

TUVALU*

UGANDA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

UKRAINE

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - I can only wonder how they ratified!

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

URUGUAY

UZBEKISTAN - I can only wonder how they ratified!

VANUATU

VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF)

VIET NAM

YEMEN - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ZAMBIA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ZIMBABWE  - I can only wonder how they ratified! So ... how does it work.  Well, caps and limits.  Everyone will reduce their emissions by X amount %. For say, Zimbabwe, it must reduce by 20% ... but Zimbabwe doesnt have much to reduce.  If they reduce anything, it will not dramatically affect anything in Zimbabwe. If they reduce, $$ is available.  So everyone goes into this treaty with X amount of emissions permissible as determined by the average overall emission levels ... Some countries will come in a little under and others way way under (Afghanistan).  Some countries will produce a lot ... say Russia, which could then buy the credits to balance out.  This is a transfer of wealth from Russia to Afghanistan or Zimbabwe or any one of the multitude who signed on to get some free money. But if you are part of a larger unit ... say the EU, you have to average out the total .. between countries who have little production and those who have a great deal (Denmark, Norway and say Germany).  The US meanwhile has to reduce its output by 20-30% ... which means production and industry suffer, unemployment increases, and our GNP drops, our wealth drops ... while the EU thrives even while Germany could in theory be exceeding its limits, overall it will average within the EU. The same would go for China - the worst polluter.  1st world countries as measured by limits defined in the treaty, would be required to reduce and cut, while growing nations would receive $$$ paid by nations who exceed their limits.  Again, redistribution of wealth from US to the UN and then to THEM.  And the worst polluters would not stop - China would be given a great deal of leeway to pollute and receive $$ to modernize. Would all of this make the world less polluted?  VERY SLIGHTLY. What then is the point?  To weaken the US as it permits other countries to utilize money we are forced to provide to cut emissions while our economy is catastrophically changed to one where we all produce solar panels or end up jobless paid with benefits derived from an increasing tax base because we have to fund NATO without equal assistance from all involved, fund the global climate accord because no one else will ... And they wonder why many Americans want to pull out?  And why so many other Americans want to stay in, and don't understand why they support it other than it sounds good! [While the exact specifics are not exactly what I have listed above, I have generalized and simplified a lot.  I do however, believe everything is accurate.] The LEFT has become unhinged The link above is a fantasmic buffet of the delusional democrats on display. Lunacy.  Do they even know what the document says??? Billions - that is ALL they are interested in.  And political types who want to sign on ... are twats. From NPR: Under the Paris accord, the U.S. sent some $1 billion to the Green Climate Fund that is guided by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change — the body that coordinates international climate policy. The U.S. was supposed to provide an additional $2 billion, but Trump has balked at that idea, and his proposed budget includes cuts to international climate programs.

NY Times: Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Kevin Lewis, issued a statement dismissing the claims. “A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,” he said. “As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

One former senior law enforcement official who worked under Mr. Obama said that it was “100 percent untrue” that the government had wiretapped Mr. Trump, and that the current president should be pressed to offer any evidence for his assertion.

Ben Rhodes, a former top national security aide to Mr. Obama, said in a Twitter message directed at Mr. Trump on Saturday that “no president can order a wiretap” and added, “Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.”

 We will see.  Perhaps Trump is incorrect.  If he is, I think it is time Congress acts.
They can do a vote of no confidence, they can do a Congressional Declaration Requesting the President Cease and Desist with claims and if he refuses, a congressional censure of the president.  While the actions are not binding, it will build a wall of opposition to Trump from every section of Congress, every office, and every hallway ..  Impugning the reputation of a former president with baseless and delusional accusations is ... slanderous at the very least and perhaps Congress should consider moving toward removing the president.  

However, if evidence exists ... the NY Times is again a LIAR, Rhodes is discredited and should be fired from whatever job he has, and his security clearance revoked, and Obama should be investigated.  That investigation should go on for 4 years, and should result in prison sentences.  The Obama appointed intelligence personnel should be fired, judges removed from office, and the media forever discredited.


Updated:  Trump has asked Congress to investigate.  He actually should have asked Congress to investigate BEFORE he accused Obama.  Although, in typical NYT fashion, they ensure the unfounded portion.  Aren't ALL claims unfounded to begin with ... unless Trump found some devices and hasn't revealed that as yet.

From 'This Week' - “I think he’s right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney general — at the Justice Department,” Mukasey told ABC’s “This Week.”

and

 Mark Levin, a conservative constitutional lawyer stated it was known, that there was wiretapping of Trump/campaign and others.

Obama v Trump on Press Freedom

Why It'll Be Hard for Trump to Surpass Obama's Record of Chilling Press Freedom

 

‘Folks like Rush Limbaugh, some commentators on Fox News, that hot house ... has been harmful to the country’

Many in the mainstream media are reacting with righteous indignation over comments from a senior Trump adviser suggesting the administration views the traditional media as an opponent. But if we're to take these apostles of press freedom seriously, they should first explain why the Trump Administration is worse than the Obama Administration.

 After all, the Obama Administration literally tried imprisoning an uncooperative journalist, monitored journalists' every digital move, and "hammered" at least one challenging reporter with IRS audits.

Let's rewind the tape.

The Obama Administration began with lofty promises of being "the most transparent administration in history." Instead it ended up setting a record, by the Associated Press's count, for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests.

As the administration's popularity began tumbling early into its first year, the Obama White House declared war on Fox News. The White director of communications, Anita Dunn, warned they would henceforth treat Fox News "like an opponent," insisting, "we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

The Obama administration made good on that threat. Soon thereafter, the administration sought to deny Fox News' participation in executive branch news-making events -- which only failed after other networks admirably refused to participate if Fox News were excluded.

As you'll see in the montage above, President Obama blamed Fox News and talk radio for virtually every problem his administration encountered, warning in his waning days that these "domestic propagandists" were far more damaging to America than any interference from hostile powers like Russia.

When Fox News's State Department correspondent, James Rosen, reported accurate information about North Korea leaked by a member of the Obama State Department, Eric Holder ordered his movements to be tracked, his phone records seized, and went "judge shopping" until he found one willing to grant such a warrant without telling Rosen himself. Holder even told Google to not notify Rosen that the government was monitoring his email.

"To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based," the Washington Post wrote at the time.

And it wasn't just Fox News. The New York Times's James Risen was targeted for almost the entirety of Obama's two terms. His crime? Reporting accurate information the Obama Administration didn't want reported. "Along the way, we found out that the government had spied on virtually every aspect of James Risen’s digital life from phone calls, to emails, to credit card statements, bank records and more," the Freedom of the Press Foundation reported. After the Supreme Court rejected Risen's appeal of an earlier order mandating he testify about the source of information he reported, Risen faced jail time.

After an outcry, Holder finally backed down.

The Associated Press experienced similar surveillance. For two months, the Department of Justice tracked 20 AP reporters' calls, ostensibly over their reporting into a Libyan terrorist's failed plot. Why was reporting on a failed plot so threatening? The AP said it was because the administration wanted to announce the news itself.

Obama himself was notorious for granting interviews with journalists whom he knew would treat him gently -- like Steve Kroft. When Obama accidentally exposed himself to a mildly challenging interview with a local reporter in Saint Louis, that reporter was later "hammered" with IRS audits.
With the Obama Administration, the message to the media was always clear: Report negatively about us, and we'll use the powers at our disposal to make you suffer consequences.

If those journalists currently complaining about the Trump Administration found no such fault with the Obama Administration, perhaps it's because they were all too willing to toe the line.

Obama's FIRST Phone Call and His last!

On January 20, 2009, Obama became president.  Within an hour, he was on the phone to the Palestinian president.  His first phone call as president.

On January 19, 2017, just hours from stepping into private life, he spoke with Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany.  The White House depicted it as a private call, between friends ...

I think there is A LOT more to this story.  Not that it is relevant now that Obama has gone away, but it is still a story ...

Angela Merkel stated publicly that Obama could not be trusted (as per an interview she gave to der Spiegel).  She could not and did not trust him.

Yet, they characterize her and Obama as besties less than two years later!!

I think not.  Me thinks there is more to this, but we won't know for some time.

I believe ... I believe ...

I believe in love, love, love, love, love!
When you can't see the forest for the trees,
follow the colors of your dreams
just turn to friends their help transcends to love, love, love, love, love

The winter's finally passing on,
the king is back, the queen is gone,
come dance with me cause now we're free to love, love, love, love, love.

(from the movie - Mirror Mirror)

I believe ...

One can believe in LOVE or HATE or one may even believe in leprechauns, but one doesn't believe in science.  Science is not a belief nor is it within the realm of beliefs.  It is.  Simply. Factually.  Without question, science, is.

Hillary Clinton made a big deal, as did her followers, at the Democratic National Convention, that she believed in science.  Patronizing and not true.




The source for the material below is from this link.

What are the facts in the climate science debate?

• Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years
• Carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectra
• Humans have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

That is pretty much it, in terms of verifiable, generally agreed upon scientific facts surrounding the major elements of climate change debate.

Human caused global warming is a theory. The assertion that human caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis.  The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this.

Truthiness and factiness abounds in the climate science debate, and the greatest proponents of truthiness and factiness are the climate ‘alarmed’ – their opponents are mostly calling b.s. on their truthiness and factiness.  In slinging around terms like denier, anti-science etc, the defense of climate alarmism in terms of ‘science’ and ‘facts’ starts to become more anti-science than what they are accusing their opponents of.

From the Rational Wiki:

The term “antiscience” refers to persons or organizations that promote their ideology over scientifically-verified evidence, usually either by denying said evidence and/or creating their own. Antiscience positions are promoted especially when political ideology and/or religious dogma conflict with actual science. 

The most glaring ‘factiness’ and anti-science strategy is the linking of extreme weather events to human caused climate change.  Roger Pielke Jr has an eloquent op-ed in the WSJ (unfortunately behind paywall, which I will have more to say about in another post next week).

So . . . who fits the definition of ‘anti-science’?  Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?  Ignoring science (Trump) does not qualify him for ‘anti-science’.  Science does not prescribe public policy.  The political dogma of Obama, Clinton and Pope Francis surrounding climate change seems like more of a recipe for ‘anti-science.’


SO .... to repeat (emphasis is mine) -

"who fits the definition of ‘anti-science’?  Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?  Ignoring science (Trump) does not qualify him for ‘anti-science’.  Science does not prescribe public policy.  The political dogma of Obama, Clinton and Pope Francis surrounding climate change seems like more of a recipe for ‘anti-science.’"


And I would go one step further, and 'defend' or 'explain' Trump, not that he needs it ... he is the President of the United States -

He doesn't ignore science, he simply questions whether humans have much/any impact on climate change. And how much if any.

That is not anti science.  That is not someone who disagrees with science or the facts, he questions how much if any impact humans have.  That would be reasonable to ask.  

NY Times OP Ed: Sorry Libs ....

Sorry, Liberals. Bigotry Didn’t Elect Donald Trump.

By DAVID PAUL KUHN
NY Times

DEC. 26, 2016

Donald J. Trump won the white working-class vote over Hillary Clinton by a larger margin than any major-party nominee since World War II. Instead of this considerable achievement inspiring introspection, figures from the heights of journalism, entertainment, literature and the Clinton campaign continue to suggest that Mr. Trump won the presidency by appealing to the bigotry of his supporters. As Bill Clinton recently said, the one thing Mr. Trump knows “is how to get angry white men to vote for him.”

This stereotyping of Trump voters is not only illiberal, it falsely presumes Mr. Trump won because of his worst comments about women and minorities rather than despite them.

In fact, had those people who agreed that Mr. Trump lacked “a sense of decency” voted for Mrs. Clinton, she would have been elected the next president.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump equally won over party loyalists. Yet about one in five voters did not have a favorable view of either candidate. These voters overwhelmingly backed Mr. Trump. Exit polls demonstrated that if voters who disapproved of both candidates had divided evenly between them, Mrs. Clinton would have won.

Several weeks before the election, a Quinnipiac University poll found that 51 percent of white working-class voters did not believe that Mr. Trump had a “sense of decency” and ranked Mrs. Clinton slightly higher on that quality.

But they were not voting on decency. Indeed, one-fifth of voters — more than 25 million Americans — said they “somewhat” disapproved of Mr. Trump’s treatment of women. Mr. Trump won three-quarters of these voters, despite their disapprobation.

Bluntly put, much of the white working class decided that Mr. Trump could be a jerk. Absent any other champion, they supported the jerk they thought was more on their side — that is, on the issues that most concerned them.

And anti-immigrant blowback, for instance, was not what unified them. Mr. Trump proposed expelling illegal immigrants yet more of his voters, by a 50 percent to 45 percent margin, said illegal immigrants working here should be offered a chance to apply for legal status rather than be deported.

In the Obama era, we also saw that race was not a critical driver of white swing votes. Barack Obama won more support among white men in 2008, including the working class, than any Democrat since 1980.

Mr. Obama’s support among these whites was at its peak in 2008 after the stock market crash. At the depths of the Great Recession that followed, blue-collar white men experienced the most job losses.

Their support began hemorrhaging after Mr. Obama chose early in his presidency — when congressional Democrats could have overcome Republican obstruction — to fight for health care reform instead of a “new New Deal.”

By 2016, Mr. Trump personified the vote against the status quo, one still not working out for them. A post-campaign study comparing the George W. Bush coalition in 2000 to the Trump coalition in 2016 found that Mr. Trump particularly improved in areas hurt most by competition from Chinese imports, from the bygone brick and tile industry of Mason City, Iowa, to the flagging furniture plants of Hickory, N.C. The study concluded that, had the import competition from China been half as large, Mrs. Clinton would have won key swing states and the presidency with them.

This argument does not ignore bigotry. Racism appeared more concentrated among Trump voters. One poll found that four in 10 Trump supporters said blacks were more “lazy” than whites, compared with one-quarter of Clinton or John Kasich supporters.

But traits are not motives and don’t necessarily decide votes. Consider that four in 10 liberal Democrats, the largest share of any group, said in 2011 that they would hold a Mormon candidate’s faith against him or her. It would be silly to argue that, therefore, liberals voted for Mr. Obama because Mitt Romney was Mormon.

Yet the Trump coalition continues to be branded as white backlash. The stereotyping forgets that many Trump supporters held a progressive outlook. Mr. Trump won nearly one in four voters who wanted the next president to follow more liberal policies.

Democrats need only recall Mr. Clinton to understand how voters can support someone in spite of his faults. Mr. Clinton won re-election in 1996 despite a majority, including about a third of liberal voters, saying he was not honest. His approval rating reached the highest point of his presidency during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It wasn’t that Democrats and independents endorsed Mr. Clinton’s behavior. They opposed Republicans more.

Two decades later, we are reminded again that a vote for a presidential candidate is not a vote for every aspect of him. We can look for the worst in our opponents, but that doesn’t always explain how they got the best of us.

Phone Calls!

So Donald Trump called the President of China last week, spoke to him.  Outrageous!

He called Putin!  Scandalous.

He called the Philippine President!   Oh My God.  What has he done!

He spoke to the President of Taiwan!

Liberals are going bat-shit crazy.  They are out of their minds!

My prediction - we will develop a better relationship with Russia than any re-set button accomplished, than any diplomacy by the Secretary of State ever accomplished.  We will have a better relationship with the Philippines (no more son of a bitch comments).  The Chinese will, respect us.  And we will stop pretending about so many things in the world.  Refreshing.

On January 21, 2009, at approximately 12:45-1:00 pm, Barack Hussein Obama made his first phone call as President of the United States.  In the decades past, that phone call had ALWAYS AND EVERY SINGLE TIME been to the Prime Minister of Canada.  Mr. Obama changed all that.  I am sure he consulted with the State Department as has become such an issue, and suggestion to Trump, recently, given that Trump did not ... Obama called ... the leader of the Fatah political party in the West Bank - Mahmoud Abbas.


Yep.

So, liberals, go bat-shit crazy over this, just remember ... Obama had 8 years of phone calls, and none of his foreign policy has worked out well.

The books will be written and will not all be kind.

It looks like Abbas / Palestinians are the last piece of foreign policy Obama works on as he leaves the White House.  Interesting.

Bat-shit crazy.  Off you go.

Obama and the Millenial

She doesn't like the word illegal because anyone in the US is working hard and that makes them a citizen.

But when it comes to voting ... I am a little at a loss.

Is he encouraging or supporting illegal voting?

Watch and decide!

It's all Palin's fault

Donald Trump says some dumb things.  He lacks a filter.  He lacks tact.  And he sometimes shifts blame to others, but one would tend not to assume a two-term president would be so juvenile -

According to Obama, Sarah Palin is responsible for everything, including Trump.

I see him, actually, as the start of the line - a man who had zero experience doing anything, and even the community organizing was ... very limited ... who had no experience foreign, no experience domestic, was a part time legislator in Illinois, had been there for a short time before he decided to run for US Senate with no experience, and then within months decided to run for president - with no experience doing anything other than smoking pot, writing for a Harvard Law Journal, and attending an extremist church ... no experience, but a lot of pride and ego ....

Hillary, the wife of a man who has molested more women than some men in prison for molestation.  A man who had sexual relations with THAT woman and many others, in the Oval Office - while HILLARY was nearby.  And she is a defender of women?  In what dimension.  She enabled, supported, defended, protected a serial womanizing dick.  That's what she has done.  Lied to congress, to the American people about everything from the mystery files showing up on a White House sofa to ... well, almost everything she has ever said contains part truth and part lie.

But it's all Sarah Palin's fault!

If that helps you sleep better.

Obama and his memory

In March of 2015, Mr. Obama ...

only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview.
CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.  "The same time everybody else learned it through news reports," the president told Plante.

 According to FBI documents released on Friday September 23, 2016, from a Politico column:

In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.
"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."

 Are they serial liars yet, or just liars ... or is there another category for them ... unaware, uncertain, forgetful ... qualities we desperately need in a president.  Perhaps Obama and Clinton both forgot they had communicated ...

Obama and the World: Pandering to the UN

I wonder if he will ever stop - finding reasons to criticize.  Does he not understand the psychology of moral equivalence.  I also wonder if Democrats, given a choice, and a new leader, and wide support, would even recognize him if he showed up at events or wherever.  I wonder if they understand how damaging his speaking can be to Americans and the world.  I do wonder this, often.

Does that mean some of what he has droned on about actually has some merit - sure.  At a time when, every word, every action, everything anyone does in the US is used and picked up by, and thrown back at us by ... everyone, perhaps using ones words carefully, even more so, judiciously would be beneficial, knowing that enemies of the United States will twist every word in any future verbal attack or worse.  He droned on about the US needing to let more migrants / immigrants into the US and the fact we don't want to, plays into the hands of ISIS ... oh my gosh ... his words support the violence of ISIS and other anti-American rhetoric around the world.  He gives them support by his continual criticisms, however much wrong they are, of the US.

Is there too much money in US politics?  Absolutely.  When Australia and Canada (or Australians and Canadians) have given more than $200 million to the Clinton foundation, or the tens of millions from Saudi Arabia ... absolutely.  There is too much.  It spoils and rots whatever it infects, but this has been a concern since the beginning.  In the early 20th century, the same was said of private money corrupting public power - namely the Rockefeller family as the biggest culprits.

Unlike in the US, many countries have multiples of issues - the political corruption is not in the election process, but in graft - whether it is their state oil company or an equivalent, whether it is in Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, Iraq ... I could continue.  And when it isn't money, it is political corruption - a country where one party dominated for more than 120 years, and lost a few elections only to return to power.  They don't even need money, they simply kill their opponents.

He also droned on about unions and loss of manufacturing jobs.  I wanted to laugh, but I started to choke, and then I needed a respirator which caused stress and I started having heart palpitations .... MAYBE the loss of our jobs is due to the corporations moving their manufacturing abroad - without any sigh let alone public denunciation by the Obama administration.  Whether AT&T, Ford, Microsoft, Dell ... abroad.  Manufacturing whether Apple or any company ... Unions weren't weakened, Unions helped send them abroad.  I want to choke.  All those countries he addressed have reaped the benefits of our jobs leaving.  They should have applauded.  I'm so glad he gave them a history lesson on how it occurred, even if he was totally wrong.


Is there too much partisanship?  That is such a tricky thing.  Assume we love Obama - then we would say the Republicans are too partisan.  They refuse to do what is in the best interests of the nation.  They hamper progress, they are unmovable and thus poor Obama must do what he can to do the right thing - even if it means stepping outside the lines of constitutional authority with every sort of presidential finding and directive.  Too partisan?  It has become more partisan since Mr Obama was elected.  That must mean it is the Republicans who are at fault.

A patchwork of laws makes it difficult for all Americans to vote he told the world - yes, we could see an increase if we did what some countries do - require everyone to vote for they are fined.  That doesn't mean anyone knows anything nor that they are politically engaged - just that they vote to avoid the fine. 

It is too easy to vote in the US, but Obama wouldn't understand that.  For him - everyone should be able to walk in and vote using just their name.  THAT would be a tragic mistake.  Everyone in this country must have an ID.  The fact the Supreme Court has yet to grasp this small detail, belies the larger issues.  In many countries possession of an ID is required by law, resulting in arrest if without ID when stopped.  Well, we could adhere to those national requirements and require an ID or face arrest.  If so, then that ID would be required to vote, and everyone would have it, no matter how rich or poor.   Oh wait, we already require that.  Drivers licenses, state ID cards, medical ID, social security cards - one of those is required for everything you do.  A police officer stops you and wants to see ID .. you must show them.  In our national interest, we should work to provide every citizen an ID - whether drivers license or a state ID.  If that is accomplished, why is it so much more burdensome to show that card when voting, in order to avoid fraud and prevent a federal crime from being committed.   This subject should again be discussed publicly because we need ID to vote.

When he spoke to the UN, many member states have serious penalties for federal crimes - death or many years in their prison systems.  Here we seem to encourage it.

He also mentioned something about our ideals and the last twenty five years.  Pretty much throws Bush under the bus ... but he also tosses Bill Clinton into the grinder as well.  I wonder how Bill and Hillary feel about that!  Hmmm.  To save his legacy he needs Hillary, but Hillary is one unforgiving bitch when she is crossed and ... well, ooops, he did it again!


One comment was especially telling, and I believe it underlies Obama's philosophy concerning the United States - the only way the world will become more secure is for powerful nations like America to “accept constraints.”

He should never have been voted into office.  His morality is relative and his ethics are questionable.
Utopian ideals usually end up with millions of innocents dead. 

Oliver Stone on Obama and his intrusive surveillance state

Something I say quite often ... the Patriot Act and all that kindergarten stuff from the early 2000s -
Oliver Stone apparently, now agrees -

"Obama has managed to put together the most intensive surveillance state in the history of the world," the 'Snowden' director told THR while discussing his film at the Toronto Film Festival. "This is pretty frightening when you think about the implications." 

 

Hillary and Bill used to keep piles of files sitting around in the White House, on their enemies.  In fact, go back and check on this - about the time of the travelgate stuff.  Now imagine her with this control.

We know what she has done.  We know what she is like.

Obama and America

Having only recently (2008) been proud of America (having been born in 1961). Obama has made a practice of selling America short.  Playing to the lies and distortions about America, rarely ever expounding on the greatness of America, always seeing us as dismantled or failed or lost, hopeless ...

My comments in red

From an article posted on grabien news linked at this site.

His just-concluded trip to Asia was no different.
Here are 18 separate attacks he unloaded while in China and Laos:

1. There are still too many poor children in the United States
   True
2. Too many children in America are not getting enough to eat
   Relative to what.  2 is too many, but compared to 30 million starving in China or 500 million starving in India ...
3. Despite America's wealth, we’re not providing sufficient educational resources in poor communities
   Our education system has problems, but education does not begin with money.  How, may I ask, did America educate the children in 1870 or 1920, or 1940 .... what money, yet those children went on to build the greatest nation.
4. America lacks the “political will” to help poor inner cities that have suffered discrimination.
   Lie.
5. Americans are “lazy” in thinking we don’t need to learn about foreign nations.
   See, half true, we don't NEED to know about EVERY nation any more than THEY need to know about EVERY nation.  Therefore, half a lie.
6. Colin Kapernack is justified protesting the National Anthem, as the NFL star is raising “real, legitimate issues” about things America needs to be talked about.
   No.  Conflating issues unrelated.  Colin didn't have a problem 3 years ago or 2 years ago ... he suddenly realized.  That is enough to question his justifications.  And our issues pale compared to those in China, India, Philippines, Indonesia ....
7. America suffers from racism, conflicts between ethnic groups, and discrimination against immigrants.
   Ha.  Oh my gosh.  Really.  Play up ignorant statements and half truths.  If we were really as racist as you suggest, you would never be president.  Now, talk about the Han in China!  Or Brahmin in India.  Talk about racism and Asia is a good place to start.
8. Criticisms of America being imperfect and having problems with racism discrimination are accurate.
   Again, half a piece of sort of truth.  Rest is playing to a world lie about us.
9. America still has “situations where women are not treated equally.”
   Ha.  If we did, why is Hillary where she is.  What do we have to do to show women are equal.  This is a lie.
10. America “didn't think through” our policy in Vietnam War, as dropping cluster bombs proved counterproductive to "winning hearts and minds."
    True
11. America’s treatment of Native Americans was “tragic.”
    And this relates to what exactly.  Austrian treatment of Aborigines.  Canadian treatment of Aborigines.  ???
12. America “struggled to stay true” to our founding ideal that all men are created equal.
    And we died to stay true to the ideal ... the ideal that all men are equal, and should be free.  The ideal of individual liberty and freedom.  The ideal Mr. Obama, you were not proud of until 2008.
13. When the environment is destroyed in America, it’s because the private sector is being “lazy."
    The worst polluter on planet earth is China.  We are by far, much better about the environment then is presented by the likes of Obama or DiCaprio.
14. The United States is still to this day learning how to develop industry without destroying the environment.
    Really.  Oh my gosh.  We have developed technology in the smoke stacks, included filters, and developed further standards in sanitation to clean water and remove pollutants.  Our standards are worthy of being emulated world-wide.  Not the other way around.  Lies.
15. Due to industrialization, America “used to have terrible pollution … everywhere.”
    True, but not due to industrialization, it was due to the lack of technological resources we soon developed that cleaned it up.
16. America’s role in the Vietnam war led to mass displacement of people from their homes.
    True.  And when we left Vietnam, the communists in the North, determined to assist in repopulating, murdered 1 million south Vietnamese.
17. America dropped more bombs on Laos than on Germany and Japan during World War II … more than 2 million bombs … “the bombs fell like rain.” More bombs, he said on several occasions, were dropped on Laos per capita than anywhere else in the world.
    I would request a military historian, perhaps several generals who were part of the campaigns, and military historians who have written extensively about the bombing campaign, to verify or not.  You cannot believe Obama simply because he spews it forth.  He is not believable.
18. We bombed the “simple homes” of civilians in Laos. “Villages and entire allies were obliterated.” The ancient Plain of Jars “was devastated.” Countless civilians were killed.
    I don't know what he is saying - were innocents killed.  Yes.  Did we destroy the homes and farms of the innocents.  Yes.  And do we feel badly.  Yes.  Did we assist Laos in the intervening years to rebuild?  Yes.
    
    
    Why someone says something is sometimes more important than what they say, or write.  Agendas and ideology are omnipresent and Obama has never spoken on behalf of the American people.  He speaks for himself and the 20% who are passionate supporters.  Another 20-30% may or may not support or believe him, while the other 50% would go to sleep at night praying time would pass quickly.