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.

Venezuela Imploding and world media talks about ....

Caracas (AFP) - Crisis-hit Venezuela devalued its currency by 64 percent in a dollar auction that aimed to stabilize its foreign exchange market, officials said Wednesday.

Under an overhauled official exchange system, the government let investors bid for the dollars at a new higher rate in what President Nicolas Maduro said was an effort to undermine the black market.

But its great our media spend so much time on an inevitable and catastrophic collapse in Venezuela.

So responsible.

 

Will the Media Question Her? What about her claims, what about evidence?

While Clinton told Mossberg and Swisher she did not engage in lies during her campaign, she said Trump's side did. Clinton also raised the theory that "1,000 Russian agents" were working every day to make sure that distorted "content" was appearing before internet users. Clinton did not cite her source for the claim.

Another bizarre claim Clinton made was that Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway were chosen to run the final months of the Trump campaign because of the urging of Cambridge Analytica, which is owned by billionaire Rebecca Mercer and family. The Mercers said they would "wed" their data with the RNC and Trump's data if the hires were made.

Bannon and Conway did not immediately return a request from LifeZette to respond.

Clinton also blamed the Democratic National Committee for being in poor shape, after eight years of what should have been salad days for the party, given former President Barack Obama's tenure.

"I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation," said Clinton. "I get the nomination. So I'm now the nominee of the Democratic party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic party. I mean, it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it."


1) [EXPECT BLOWBACK on this issue from the DNC people via intermediaries. And this is only one of many!!  Click here!]

2) ANOTHER article concerning Hillary's attack on DNC.  BLOWBACK is a bitch Hillary.  No one will be with you next time! 

3) AND MORE from CNN 



 Data was on Clinton's mind, quite a bit, and not just because she was at a coding conference. Clinton laid out a three-part conspiracy in which weaponized information was coordinated on Facebook and elsewhere. Clinton came very close to suggesting Cambridge Analytica coordinated with the Russians.

The three-part conspiracy started, Clinton said, when the Russians stole information from the Democrats and Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta.

The next step was coordination, Clinton said. There was no possible way, Clinton said, that the Russians would know how to distribute the information in the most damaging way, without American help. (Clinton brushed aside the fact that WikiLeaks began leaking the information on Oct. 7, because she said WikiLeaks is the same thing as the Russian secret service.)

"The Russians, in my opinion, and based on the intel and counter-intel people I've talked to, could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided," said Clinton. "Guided by Americans. And guided by people who had polling and data and information."

 So, intel and counter-intel people divulged top secret information to Hillary ... and that is ok because?

SHE IS A LUNATIC.  She and TRUMP should get together after Melania leaves!

She hasn't acknowledged anything.  She has not been introspective nor reflective.  She eschews personal responsibility now as she did decades ago when Bill was fucking random women in the White House, and she spent her time attacking the women.

A reasonably thorough analysis of the election in the campaign book “Shattered,” journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes report they were surprised “when Clintonworld sources started telling us in 2015 that Hillary was still struggling to articulate her motivation for seeking the presidency.” Her campaign was “an unholy mess, fraught with tangled lines of authority . . . distorted priorities, and no sense of greater purpose.” “Hillary didn’t have a vision to articulate. And no one else could give one to her.” “Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn’t really have a rationale.”


One reason she lost:  Her.

This is all a bit much ... Trump, the Swamp, and the domestic enemies of everyone ...

More than 5 months ago, I stated that if Trump screwed up, people would abandon him like rats from a sinking ship.  I thought it would be easier keeping track of his administration given a brand new start.

It wasn't.  It isn't.

So, I don't believe I can keep up with this tireless tirade of tyrannical leftists ... Trump is a bozo and I cringe when I hear or see him, but they are despicable.

The whole Russian thing - nothing.  There is nothing there.  What they have is ... the democratic party was hacked by Russians who released their emails, along with Hillarys emails.  So say the Democrats and Hillary.  But, Wikileaks says it wasn't, and Assange is quite certain.  As certain as he was when he went after Bush and the left rejoiced at his every release.  They salivated waiting his next release.  Today, not so much.  It wasn't the Russians.  Any high school hacker could access the emails.

Instead you blow it up.  The Russians did it and the fact Trump won't answer means they did, and they are still in control and when he denies it, it means they are controlling him.

And then Kushner did X, and that only proves the ties are deeper than previously known.  And because of that it proves the Russian connections, and that Russia did influence the election.

Yet, IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING.  It is just mindless drivel spit out at a public either salivating with desire to know more dirt, or people sickened by the shit coming from the NYT and WP.


Another Washington Post anonymously sourced hit job dropped on the Trump White House — this one about Jared Kushner asking the Russian ambassador for a “secret channel.”

The story about Kushner is basic Poli Sci 101 - back channels are always set up (even with Obama), with countries you have so-so relationships with.  We have a back-channel with Iran, but the WP doesn't go on about that.  We use Switzerland.   We have a back-channel to North Korea - we use China.  I would also bet we have low level back channel, through individuals who met and know the North Korean leader.  There are multiple levels to back-channel relationships done for any number of reasons.  We had them in place during the Cold War - Armand Hammer was used by the Nixon and Carter administrations.  Democrats know this.  And legitimate and objective reporters know this.


Mindless drivel by petulant children and you wonder why Trump disregards you.  You are not worth paying attention to.  Honestly.



The below is taken from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/28/thanks-to-trump-germany-says-it-cant-rely-on-america-what-does-that-mean/?utm_term=.eae377d6d51c

Agence France-Presse reported Sunday that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has told a crowd in southern Germany that Europe can no longer rely on foreign partners.

The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I’ve experienced that in the last few days,” Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich. “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands,” she added. While Germany and Europe would strive to remain on good terms with America and Britain, “we have to fight for our own destiny.”

This is an enormous change in political rhetoric. While the public is more familiar with the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States, the German-U.S. relationship has arguably been more important. One of the key purposes of NATO was to embed Germany in an international framework that would prevent it from becoming a threat to European peace as it had been in World War I and World War II. In the words of NATO’s first secretary general, NATO was supposed “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Now, Merkel is suggesting that the Americans aren’t really in, and, by extension, Germany and Europe are likely to take on a much more substantial and independent role than they have in the past 70 years.
This is thanks to Trump
Merkel’s comment about what she has experienced in the past few days is a clear reference to President Trump’s disastrous European tour. Her belief that the United States is no longer a reliable partner is a direct result of Trump’s words and actions. The keystone of NATO is Article 5, which has typically been read as a commitment that in the event that one member of the alliance is attacked, all other members will come to its aid. When Trump visited NATO, he dedicated a plaque to the one time that Article 5 has been invoked — when all members of NATO promised to come to the United States’ support after the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. However, Trump did not express his commitment to Article 5 in his speech to NATO, instead lambasting other NATO members for not spending enough money on their militaries. When Trump went on to the Group of Seven meeting in Italy, he declined to recommit to the Paris agreement on climate change, leaving the other six nations to issue a separate statement.
This cements the impression of the United States as an unreliable partner. Trump has ostentatiously refused to express his commitment to an agreement that has been the bulwark of Europe-U.S. security relations over the past three generations. He also has declined to say that the United States will work within the previously agreed framework on global warming. While many authoritarian states are cheered by Trump’s election and actions, since he is unlikely to press them on human rights and other sore points, traditional U.S. allies are enormously disheartened.

Yet another bit of witless wonder from the WP -

But some former administration officials on Sunday criticized the use of such secret channels, especially during a presidential transition, saying they could send a confusing message and be manipulated by a foreign power.

I really need to go back to UCLA and request a refund from the courses taken in poli sci, because apparently people like Dukakis and Dallek, and other professors I took classes from were wrong compared with these 'experts'!




 BULLSHIT.

Facts?  Or just OPINION mixed with a few details that have no bearing on anything written above.

Henry Farrell is a poor example of a writer.  You should do creative writing, because that is what your article is.  Creative writing.  A poor example of, but still, far from serious news reporting.

This is an example of what has been tossed at Trump for the last 5 months.  Shit.  And his inability to restrain his fingers from tap tap tapping away, only makes it worse, and they play on it.  Sad stupid people.

I do recall a statement from Der Spiegel - in which Merkle stated that she did not TRUST Obama, and he was not trustworthy.  Poland didn't think we were either, they set up relationships because Obama didn't show respect for the security of Poland.  Ukraine - they were left on their own, and felt we had abandoned them - Hillary and Obama.  Latvia - they needed to create alliances because NATO made it clear they would not help.  Estonia same thing.  South Korea - as the US pulled troops out of Korea, we made it clear we could not be counted on to protect them from N Korea.  In fact, if you are that animated about all this - look into 1993-1998, Clinton White House and North Korea, as to who provided North Korea with what today is the basis of their most worrisome weapon system.

Given all that - and the fact that on DAY ONE, HOUR ONE, Obama called not the Canadian Prime Minister, nor the British ... he called Abbas in West Bank.  Abbas was also his last call.  THAT showed how the US would treat our ally Israel.  That showed how valuable we prized the relationship with Canada.  And then, Obama making it clear in his words, that our relationship with England was important and valuable ... but he did not use the words special.  He signaled a change.

The former French President Sarkozy turned away from the US, The English were not engaged.  The Australians were dictated to - Obama forced them to accept terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.  They did not want nor ask for them, but he made them take them, thus placing Australians at greater risk.

The French, Estonians, English, Latvians, Ukrainians, Polish, Hungarian, South Korean, Canadian, Israeli ... and Germans ... all saw the writing on the wall.  He worked with them, but they knew they had to build their own alliances because the US wasn't willing to continue our defensive efforts to protect those countries.  We would go so far, but not beyond.

THAT is a bloody disgrace.

Trump comes along and says - Euros, pay what the NATO Charter says you will pay.  We will always be here for you, but you need to be responsible and keep up your end of the treaty.  We will do our part.

And for that the WP says "This cements the impression of the United States as an unreliable partner"  Ha ha ha ha.  To whom.  Your readers.  You are a joke.  The writer of this trash is a disgrace.  You are pathetic - both as  a newspaper and the writer who most likely thinks of himself as a journalist.  Ha Ha.

It is too much though.  It is everyday, every article.  They never tire.  They have no conscience.


Do you want something to investigate besides North Korea and Bill Clinton?
Look at how much money Hillary and Bill received from Russian sources (government, or NGOs or personal parties who are Russian).
Look into how much money John Podesta made from Russian stocks and or received from Russian sources.

That is something real!

That is worth noting given her billion dollar funding source she calls a non-profit ... which was originally set up for ??? what reason???  And of the total $1 received in donation, how much was spent and where????

That is something real!