Here are a few stories about some lesser-known people who made the news this week that I thought would interest you. Continue reading
IT’S ABOUT TIME – As I wrote on Jan. 20, 2017, the inauguration of President Donald Trump will be remembered as the day the “kick me” sign was removed from the back of Americans. The United Nations, which has long been the center of anti-American activity, received a shot across the bow on Jan. 27, 2017, when our newly confirmed UN Ambassador Nikki Haley presented her credentials to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Continue reading
These are some of the quotes from the news that made my day. Continue reading
We went into the long 4th of July weekend with four stories pointing to Hillary Clinton as someone who simply cannot be trusted. You may not have heard about the fourth story, another eye-opener. Continue reading
During your Manilla press conference this week, you mocked Republicans for their concern over the threat Syrian refugees pose saying, “They’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America.”
Where were you on Aug. 20, 2013, when 1,429 people, including 426 children, in Damascus were killed with Sarin gas? A year earlier, you told us that “a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
Yet, on Sept. 4, 2013, you said, “I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line.” Okay, Mr. President, so be it, but what’s your excuse for not stopping the genocide in Syria. Women and children aside, where were you when Christians were being beheaded and burned alive?
You didn’t seem to worry about Syria’s women and children while you couldn’t come up with a strategy to deal with the Assad regime and ISIL. How many of those women and children would be alive today if you had acted responsibly.
There’s more. The Oxford Research Group reported that some 11,000 children died in the Syrian conflict by late November 2013, and early this year, the United Nations, your favorite deliberative body, estimated that 220,000 had died in the war.
For years, you ignored the horror being faced by those women and children in Syria; now you want to be seen as the savior of 10,000 refugees headed for America.
Shame on you. How can you look at yourself in a mirror?
As the Nov. 30, convening of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris draws near we are already beginning to see an uptick in communications on climate change.
In the past week, the news seems to favor those of us who don’t buy the scare tactics of those who predict doom and gloom. Today’s USA Today seems to poke fun at President Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 science advisory committee report that carbon dioxide levels would increase enough to almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere by the year 2000. Continue reading
“Reducing our consumption of fossil fuels will not make bad weather and extreme natural events go away.” – Pierre Desrochers, author and academic
Faithful readers of this blog know my position on climate change. Yes, it is taking place; it’s cyclical. And, yes, we have experienced a very slight warming, but we cannot do anything to change that trend.
In an interesting writing by University of Toronto associate professor of geography Pierre Desrochers, recently excerpted in the Wall Street Journal’s regular Notable & Quotable column, I found his observation of those who believed that the means of human subsistence (Malthusians) were so similar to climate change dooms day catastrophists.
Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) argued that human population would increase to the maximum extent permitted by human fertility, that the means of subsistence wouldn’t keep up, and that the unavoidable result would be poverty, starvation, war, diseases and population crashes. Continue reading
Well, well, well … today we learned that it was Hillary Clinton who opened the door to accepting a change in U.S. policy that would allow Iran to continue to produce nuclear fuel.
After an unproductive secret meeting between Clinton’s foreign policy aide Jake Sullivan and Iranian diplomats in Oman in July 2012, and in a series of meetings in Washington over the following six months, Clinton and Obama concluded that we would have to let Iran continue to enrich uranium at small levels if an agreement was to succeed.
Very interesting, since it was Clinton who, during the 2008 campaign, called Obama naïve for believing he could directly negotiate with Iran’s regime. Continue reading
In my Jan. 20, post on Iran’s exploitation of President Obama’s foreign policy weakness I mentioned hints that U.S. negotiators were backing off their demand for an outright halt to Iran’s nuclear program in favor of a lesser demand that would provide Iran with a window to gradually build up its capability. Today, it appears we’re a step closer to such an agreement.
Secretary of State John Kerry told senators yesterday, “There is no deal yet. And I caution people to wait and see what these negotiations produce.” All reports indicate, however, that a deal in the works would supposedly slow the Iranian nuclear program.
“The president has made clear – I can’t state this more firmly – the policy is Iran will not get a nuclear weapon,” Kerry tried to assure members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Continue reading
There they were, President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping, all smiles during last month’s APEC summit meeting in Beijing, after signing a commitment to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2025-2030.
The sight of the two leaders agreeing on the reduction of fossil fuels had to thrill the low-information crowd and, of course, the “greenies.” But it was all for show. A photo op.
Most of us understood the president’s signature on this agreement had no legal force, as he will be long gone and it will be up to future Congresses and presidents to decide on any commitment on emissions. In fact, insiders say the 114th Congress will vote on a resolution disavowing the president’s commitment. Of course, President Obama plans to impose limits on us without a vote of Congress.
The two leaders were excited about the momentum the agreement would have on the United Nation’s December climate conference in Lima, Peru.
Instead, we saw the momentum come to a halt in Lima as Chinese and Indian delegates demanded that every use of “shall” be changed to “may,” or they would walk. They were also able to strip language that countries should commit to providing “verifiable, transparent, consistent and complete, accurate and comparable information.”
Laughingly, the Lima agreement stated that all countries will receive a United Nations “invitation” to define a carbon-reduction target of their own choosing, whenever they are ready, with no specific goals or consequences if they don’t reply.
Climate control will undoubtedly be a major issue in the 2016 presidential election year. It’s destined to be a winning issue for Republicans, who will confront green Democrats on their support of fewer jobs, more-expensive energy and the never-ending commitment to contributing billions of dollars to climate aid.