Trump disappointed me in deciding against moving the US Embassy officially to Jerusalem, but the withdrawal from Obama’s bogus Paris deal makes up for that quite a lot.
First off, the deal was unconstitutional: it was a treaty which Obama never submitted for ratification. And it was not submitted because it would have been swiftly voted down. Secondly, it didn’t do anything – even in theory, if all its provisions were carried out, the apparent supposed benefit was a mere 0.2 degree reduction from expected warming by 2100, or something. Finally, it appears to require us to shovel many buckets of money at foreign governments and progressive NGO’s. I don’t see any point to the agreement, folks.
It has been very revealing that many of the Never Trump Conservatives are taking exception to this action – including those who had called the agreement, when reached, a bad thing. All of a sudden, it is bad for our global leadership position to withdraw! This is absurd – and shows that Never Trump isn’t motivated by principal, but merely by animus towards Trump. Which is fine – but if you just hate the guy, say that: don’t try to tell me you’re trying to save Conservatism from Trump and then go off and defend something as anti-Conservative as the Paris deal.
Latest, funniest addition to the YCMTSU file.
While reading, remember, this woman was the head of the DNC and many still mourn her removal from that position.
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, that’s for sure.
The story reminds me of the bank robber who wrote his demand letter on the back of his printed deposit slip (with name and address) and then left it behind.
Okey dokey, Debs. In your world law firms just hand out info on lawsuits to anonymous callers obviously using voice changing technology.
Now we’ve got word that someone in the Deep State exposed a covert agent in charge of Iran policy…putting people’s lives at risk; and from what I understand, this might have been done as an attempt to save Obama’s Iran deal. If true, then someone needs to catch it hot for the leak…and, also if true, it means that the real purpose is to save Obama, not to bring down Trump…if they could bring him down, they’d be happy, of course, but I think they feel their duty is to keep protecting the President-in-Exile.
Mark, this has two aspects. One is the Deep State official who gave the information to the NYT. The other is that the Times published it. (emphasis mine)
So the Times has apparently made it the newspaper’s mission to make the agency’s work much more difficult and far more dangerous by publicly identifying the man in charge of its covert operations in the Persian country. The paper’s rationale? The report’s authors claimed that because the newspaper already outed D’Andrea in 2015 as the official in charge of a CIA drone program, ignoring desperate pleas from the CIA at the time to keep his name secret in order to protect both the agent and overall national security, it was kosher to out him as the agency’s new Iran chief in 2017.
Often, when CIA agents are outed, they are in potential danger, but apparently this does not concern the Times, since D’Andrea holds the wrong geopolitical views.
The report’s authors claimed that because the newspaper already outed D’Andrea in 2015 as the official in charge of a CIA drone program…….. it was kosher to out him as the agency’s new Iran chief in 2017.
This is classic LibSpeak. The Times ignored the pleas of the CIA in 2015 and published the identity of the man in charge of a CIA drone program, in spite of being told this might endanger him as well as the national security of the nation—with no evident penalty, BTW. Then the Times uses the first crime as the rationale for committing another, by publishing the same agent’s name in a new position.
Yeah, we need to know who gave the information to the Times. But we also need to deal with the Times and other publications which knowingly publish classified information.
Is it a crime to publish classified information if one has never agreed not to? There are some who say no. I say yes, because knowingly publicizing classified information poses a danger, to those outed and to the nation. Perhaps Congress could address this and tighten up the laws a little.
And no screeching about the “freedom of the press”. There is a difference between freedom of the press and using the press to sabotage and undermine the government because it is led by someone the press doesn’t like.
Its pretty vile, when you get down to it – everything thrown out the window to either protect Obama or tear down Trump.
The link says – “Page Not Found”. Anyone else get that?
I got that, too, but at the top of the page is a group of topics and if you click on this topic there the story comes up.
Pulling out of this non binding, toothless agreement that essentially handcuffed the US while holding other countries like China to the honor system, is 100% the right thing to do. This agreement was simply another part of the Democrat playbook; punish America for our past transgressions and apologize for our success. The world, and particularly the worlds elite have been feasting at the American taxpayers expense for years while our Democrats have been gleefully setting the table. No more.
According to John Podesta:
Every politician between now and then must answer the question of whether she or he stands with Trump and fossil-fuel special interests or stands with the health and well-being of our children and our planet.
It’s always for the children isn’t it? What a deliciously delusional and elitist article Mr. Podesta wrote this morning. Here are a few more nuggets with commentary:
Climate change is real and happening now, and we have the power to slow it down.
So we have the power to change climate change (whatever that means), but we CAN NOT secure the border, or police the Chicago streets to prevent kids from being killed – but we CAN change the earth’s atmosphere.
While other countries will lead the global transition to clean energy, particularly China…
Why of course, China is making huge strides to change their fossil fuel, coal based economic engine. And I have some ocean front property here in AZ to all those who believe that.
Negotiating the Paris accord was complicated and required determined American diplomacy and the leadership of President Barack Obama
It’s never easy negotiating a non binding, honor system based agreement with Dictators and Tyrants.
I think what I like most about Trump is his innate ability to expose the delusion and the hatred of the left. It’s always been right under the surface, and Trump knows how to lift the veil.
I really hope this withdrawing from the Paris Accord drives the Left over the edge causing them to do something really stupid. So far they’ve been mostly talk — delusional talk, but just talk nonetheless.
In classic liberal fashion, Kathie Griffin is now the victim and playing every progressive card she can; the misogyny card, the bully card, the race card, the woman card, etc., etc.
‘There’s a bunch of old white guys trying to silence me’ Kathy Griffin breaks down claiming Trump family ruined her life – as her lawyer scoffs at report Barron was upset over severed head video
Kathie Griffin is a vile POS
It could be said that she voluntarily decapitated her career.
hahahaha Shouldn’t the Jihadists be upset over her “cultural appropriation”?
Cluster, that is a good one. We need to continue throwing that stupid “cultural appropriation” thing back in their faces every time we can.
Kathie Griffith is just another example of the Leftist Dictionary, where they simply define any word to mean anything they want it to mean. That is the only way anyone could ever call her a “comedian”.
The “Trump family ruined her life”—by what? Not finding her vile vicious efforts to get attention anything but vile and vicious? All they did was notice what she did. And I haven’t heard of the Trumps actually doing anything. It is the other decent people in this country who are commenting on her depravity.
The more she talks the more disgusting she is.
Zero Hedge—on the same page as the Wasserman link—-has a short article on Griffin’s faux “breakdown”. It serves several purposes. The first, and most important, the motive behind the whole thing from the get-go, was to get her a lot of publicity, and this act is a continuation of that. That was the initial ploy. But now she has been able tack on a big dose of victimization—-a surefire way to get the support of the Left—-and an ongoing attack on Trump.
Sadly, it will all play out well for much of the Loony Left. The article is pretty funny, though.
The Complicit Agenda Media scurried to provide cover. One story I read referred to the reaction to Griffin “holding up a bloody mask“.
The media whores literally have no shame.
I do notice a lot of comments commenting on the fact that for an alleged “comedian” Griffin is most known for being very unfunny.
This is not, BTW, her first foray into cultural appropriation. I understand that in one New Year’s Eve show she kissed Anderson Cooper’s crotch.
I don’t think it hurts for Trump to wait a little while to move the US Embassy in Israel to give the Palestinians a chance to try to strike a peace deal. But they won’t and then hopefully he’ll have a good excuse to say he tried and then move it.
I agree, Frank. It is always better to be able to point back to something the other side did, or didn’t do, that led to a decision. And the prospect of moving the embassy might be an incentive for the Palestinians to shape up.
I’m hoping that is the case – meaning that, now, he’s letting the PA know that they’ve got this one, short window of time to secure a genuine peace.
“The moral code reflects the natural law, which is ingrained into our very being,” His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia explained.
“We have an innate sense of right and wrong, which is the voice of our conscience,” the Metropolitan continued. “Fascist, communist, and apartheid laws violate our fundamental sense of freedom.”
“The validation of gay ‘marriage,’ so-called, distorts the natural mode of relationship between the sexes,” His Beatitude said. “It fundamentally distorts the nature of the family. Thus, many people will reject it as unnatural.”
Kirill was presenting his book, Freedom and Responsibility: A Search for Harmony. The point His All-Holiness wanted to make was that homosexual behavior comes out of “an emphasis on freedom with complete disregard for moral responsibility.”
“The forced imposition of homosexual marriage will be met with resistance just like other contrived orderings enforced by state authority, like fascism and apartheid were,” Fr. Jacobse elaborated. “New social orderings that go against nature universally oppress the human spirit.”
“We see the early stages of this conflict with the state driving people out of business who resist the attempts to define homosexuality as a natural expression of human sexuality,” Jacobse pointed out. “Clear thinkers will discern the totalitarian spirit behind the enforcement and reject it, regardless of the reasoning used to justify it.”
Strong words – but, he’s right. It’s one thing to demand tolerance, quite another to demand the enforcement of a belief.
I could not agree more with the MSM’s response to the London terror attack. CNN did a couple stories on the importance of the London Police not over reacting, which is smart. No need to further anger any more Muslims. MSNBC worried about the rise of Islamophobia and the potential negative impacts that might have in the Islam community, which again is smart to think about. And this morning on Morning Joe, Mika pointed out the President’s grammar and how egregious his tweets were. I mean it’s one thing to drive a bus into civilians, assault, attack, and stab dozens of innocent people, but to respond with a dangling participle is just beyond the pale. Mika went on to point out the “measured tones” of London’s Muslim Mayor and how that is the appropriate response, and I think she is on to something. If we would just correct our grammatical mistakes and speak more in measured tones, we may not have a radical Islamic problem.
We really do need a special sarcasm font.
Jennifer Rubin, of the Washington Post, had a full-fledged wall-kicking hissy fit meltdown that didn’t even pretend to be a news story but was instead, a venting of rage and bias. She is now freaking out over Trump’s reaction to the London terrorist attacks. And “freaking out” is not an exaggeration. An example of her “journalistic integrity”: she claimed his response was …impulsive and cruel, without an ounce of class or human decency..”
Cruel? Cruel to whom? Those poor misunderstood killers so “cruelly” identified as terrorists? Cruel to the nation to which he offered condolences and support?
Speaking of embarrassing oneself, Jennifer——got a mirror?
Why do I think she identifies with Kathy Griffin?
It’s hard to listen / read / discuss this constant outburst of accusations that have only one purpose – shut down the opposition at all cost, regardless of the truth. I guess I shouldn’t find it amazing just how many people are swayed by this rhetoric especially if they saw the unvarnished truth. I believe they’d be devastated at just how much the fool they’re played for. As Spook brings up from time to time, the din of anger and discontent generated by these lies, has been pushed on steroids, to the point where good people might soon have to decide where, when and how they’ll stand up in defense of their family, fellow countrymen and moral justice. For now, I revert to prayer, knowing that God’s plan will play out, even if I don’t know or understand what that is. This however, does not preclude me from taking action if confronted with an evil I cannot walk away from.
I think most of us followed the revelation of data manipulation and falsification back in 2009 and again in 2011 when prominent climate scientists had their emails hacked, and again recently when Dr. John Bates, a former NOAA scientist blew the whistle on a NOAA report which used incomplete and experimental data to try to explain away the nearly 2 decade pause in global temperature increases. Unless you’re a true climate techie, however, it’s difficult to image just exactly how this was accomplished. Tony Heller at realclimatescience.com has an excellent video showing EXACTLY how it was done.
So, how does NASA and NOAA get away with outright lies when it seems they would both be scrutinized and publicly shown fraudulent by other scientist, congress and the general population? I guess being an institution that received their funding from certain government propaganda machines, they bend to the will of those in control of the purse strings. Does anyone still wonder if the swamp needs draining?
It’s the same problem that affects all the information that never gets to the public. That is, when the Left controls the narrative, people are told only what the Left wants them to hear. There are a few feeble little voices out on the fringes of the media saying “but…but…but that simply is not true” and offering the truth, but they are drowned out by the cacophony of the Complicit Agenda Media howling at top volume while the Left demonizes those other voices ( “Faux News” etc).
The data HAVE been shown to be fraudulent, the “scientists” HAVE been shown to be lying, the collusion among them to propagate these lies HAS been shown by publishing their own emails back and forth—-but the truth is drowned out by the noise machine of the Left.
This is made a lot easier by the fact that the run-of-the mill Lefty, who is probably a nice enough person and means well, is too lazy to look any deeper than the surface sludge he is spoon-fed by the media. And as they prove, day in and day out, GIGO.
I would just add that confirmation bias, again something that occurs on both sides but is more prevalent on the Left because Leftist ideas appeal to emotion more than Conservative ideas. Conservatives, at least the ones I’ve known, tend to be both more logical and skeptical. And, of course, in the case of the AGW/Climate Change debate, all you really have to do is look at the rhetoric and actions of those on the alarmist side. Which side threatens prosecution and punishment if you don’t believe what they tell you? Which side travels around the globe to climate conferences in large jets, arriving at posh resorts in caravans of big SUV’s. Which side suggests that they are part of the solution by not practicing what they preach but instead by buying carbon credits from more environmentally responsible people? When you stop to think about it, if it weren’t for the misdirection of hundreds of billions of dollars that could be better used for things like clean water, food and disease control, it would be kind of humorous.
Spook, I agree that conservatives tend to more skeptical. I always say that being a conservative is a lot of work, as it involves double-checking what we are told, doing research (such as learning about the formation of the nation, the writing of the Constitution and so on) and constant disagreements with each other as we strive to find the truth. When I was a Liberal, it was so much easier—-I was told what I thought, and all I had to do was nod and then regurgitate what I had been told.
This is why I am so impatient with Libs. I have been there, I know what it feels like. But I also know that my personal commitment to truth and fairness meant that when I was faced with the fact I had been lied to, I made the effort to learn what was going on. Seeing these Libs learn facts that contradict their emotion-based allegiances and ignore those facts makes me have no respect for them at all.
My shift away from the Left happened in the 80s, thank to Clinton, or more to the point thanks to the blatant hypocrisy of the Left when it came to dealing with Clinton. One of the mainstays of my allegiance to the Left was its constant drumbeat of ‘WE are the side that respects women, WE are the ones who believe women when they say they have been assaulted, no woman should ever have to have her sexual history brought out when she says she has been raped…” and so on. That mattered to me. Watching the Left savage Clinton’s accusers and make excuses for his abuses literally turned my stomach.
And I, unlike most Libs, felt that being lied to was an important thing to pay attention to. Why do people lie? The biggest reasons are because the truth will hurt them and to get something they want. When I applied this reasoning to the reactions of the Left to Clinton and his supporters, I swore they would never fool me again. This was before I could just spend an hour or two online and research anything I wanted. I had to really work at learning the things I learned. But because I had the integrity to do so, and the willingness to admit when I was wrong, I am pretty intolerant of those who simply don’t care if they are being lied to, and/or are too intellectually and morally lazy to do the heavy lifting of learning the truth.
Being fooled is one thing. Choosing to remain in a lie, in an elaborate nest of lies, is quite another.
I remember something that was in an letter to the editor of, if I remember correctly, the NYT a few weeks or months after 9/11. It was from one of Gore’s lawyers—I keep thinking it was Bois, because it was one of the two or three big names who were always being quoted in their efforts to overturn the Florida vote count.
Anyway, he said that he was deeply and profoundly grateful that Bush had prevailed in the election, because he knew every single person in the Gore camp, knew who would have formed a Gore administration, and knew Gore himself, and knew that 9/11 happening in a Gore administration would have been an even greater disaster. It was a pretty impressive letter. (I have tried to find it since then, with no luck, but then I do not subscribe to the Times and that may be why I don’t have access to all their archives.)
Anyway, as interesting as that letter is, the real point here is that the author said that he, and the entire Gore team, knew all along that Bush had won Florida—but they fought the fight anyway because they thought Gore would be a better president. They all lied because they wanted Gore to win. THAT is what really got my attention. And that is the thumbnail sketch of the Liberal—-even knowing that his position is false, and based on lies and efforts to get others to believe those lies, he persists because he thinks the end justifies the means.
” Being fooled is one thing. Choosing to remain in a lie, in an elaborate nest of lies, is quite another.”
This seems the prevalent theme in our so called (dis) information age. Regardless if you consider yourself a Conservative or not, the search for the truth takes work, effort, thought and often training in how dissect what we read, see, hear about most any given topic to determine its legitimacy.
That’s why I’m thankful for the core participants of this blog – Mark, Amazona, Spook, Cluster… Your research, logic, wit and skillful writing have been a blessing to many of us, who might or might not participate in written opinions of our own. I have always considered myself a Conservative with reasonable ability to discern a lie, especially one told repeatedly with little more than important sounding but superficial words or something said to sound like “A” without ever saying “A”. At the same time, I have to admit I’ve been duped more than I care to admit. The ever changing “hot topic of the day” can make it difficult to stay focused on the more important aspects of things that impact our lives. Part of the difficulty in staying or becoming knowledgeable and current in political / religious / legal / moral concerns is in the search for reliable, truthful information. It can seem at times overwhelming, where many of us need to step away from the noise and confusion at times to regain our sense of balance and scope of mental peace. What we often find is, returning to the conversation is like being away from a tv soap opera for several months only to find out, nothing’s really changed (or so I’m told). This however does not stop the lie from being repeated. The truth needs diligence to gain footing, just as a lie does, only the truth doesn’t need to constantly change the narrative.
Some comments on news articles are better than the articles themselves. Following an article on the MSNBC moron (sorry for the redundancy) who fretted that the London police may have overreacted to the carnage being created by masked terrorists, I ran across this:
As I was leaving the house this morning, my door knob,which is pretty average, told me that you can’t have enough police responding to a terrorist attack.
It struck me that an average door knob was smarter than a MSNBC reporter.