Skip navigation

I would like to write about someone or something else besides the current administration and the majority party however the TOTUS continues to be a child who has not the wherewithal to govern and cannot or will not learn what his job actually entails. The majority party is busily trying to use the President’s ego to pass legislation that benefits them while telling the public that what they are doing is good for us. Looking at historical facts: A man named Adolph used the tactic of telling the same big lies on a regular basis to sell the public on the idea that someone else (the Jews and non Aryans) was responsible for their problems. People were so desperate for some relief that they accepted the lies as fact even though many of them saw no improvement especially once the war really started. Once the war got into full swing in Poland and then the attack on Russia at a cost of millions of German soldiers lives (and money). This Russian front drained the treasury which in turn reduced funds available for the pubic services. Thereafter the attacks on the rest of the world began in earnest with the cooperation of Italy and Japan according to history. What we now have is the assumption of power by a known personality with megalomania as a trait whose sole purpose is to be lauded for his sake not for what he has accomplished. I would like to write about something like former coal miners retrained into other energy jobs, Puerto Rico considered for Statehood, US-Cuban relations being normalized or common sense budgets including infrastructure repairs (job creator), proper immigration rules or perhaps a condemnation of other country’s interference in US affairs. A first giant step towards actually Governing would be truthful reporting of personal interest divestiture.

Please Donate

The current hearings on Russian interference, omissions and misdirected Governance have grabbed the headlines for too long. In the background of all of this are the real issues where our majority party is trying to strip any rational programs that benefit the oft quoted (without permission) “American People”. The ACA which only required the correct actions of tweaking it (as Legislators should have done) is in danger of being replaced or ruined by the less than candid people we elected to serve(?). The way it should be or at inception was supposed to be, legislators were (are) supposed to represent the people who elected them not themselves. The personal agenda of a representative is not why they are elected (or is it?). What has happened over the years is the manipulation of information that inflames the public to win an election and blame other people for any adversities. We now have a sitting President whose incompetence in the office is being used to stretch the American people over a barrel and hoping we will like it. These are tactics that have been used before and too many of us accepted it because we thought (or were told) that we could do nothing about it. If you are a registered voter you need to vote based on facts, not opinion. If you are not a registered voter, you need to register no matter what your political persuasion maybe. In this age of information it is difficult to determine what is correct and what is not however if you look at several  sources of information you will find the truth among them and become an informed voter. Keep in mind that modern politics is like a popularity contest with the biggest LIE being the contestants. Get informed and the lies do not look the same. Lets not do what our politicians do, that is “blame someone else”

Please Donate

My Comment: In America free speech is protected so our Elected Officials are free to say almost anything since the advent of Donald Trump’s Presidency. “Telling it like it is” has been the rallying cry for this Presidency along with the rise of seemingly Administration sanctioned Racism and bias. The  majority  party is using the out of touch Presidency to work it’s own agenda for its own gain , not it’s constituency. The article below states what many Americans and possibly politicians feel about this and administration’s actions and lack of action by the majority party. MA

Julia Munslow
Yahoo News June 9,2017

Former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis fired off a series of tweets Friday challenging a claim by House Speaker Paul Ryan that Republicans wouldn’t try to impeach a Democratic president accused of the same actions as President Trump.
Inglis, who served on the House judiciary committee that impeached former President Bill Clinton, wrote to Ryan: “You know that you would be inquiring into impeachment if this were a D.”

Inglis told Yahoo News on Friday that he hoped that Ryan and his party would put country over party and take the investigation seriously.
“We just need to be honest and … call it like it is,” Inglis said, describing the allegations against Trump far more serious than those against Nixon or Clinton. “It’s beyond a break-in at the Watergate. It’s beyond sex with a White House intern. It is the substance matter is really serious. … This investigation deals with the interference of an American election by a hostile foreign power.”
Inglis’ tweets followed former FBI chief James Comey’s testimony Thursday that included a number of explosive allegations, including that Trump fired him because of his agency’s probe into whether any Trump campaign associates colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
During a press conference, Ryan said after the testimony that Republicans wouldn’t point to impeachment if Comey had been testifying about a Democratic president. Meanwhile, some Democrats have already called for Trump’s impeachment, claiming that Trump obstructed justice.
Ryan, who called Trump’s alleged request for Comey’s loyalty “obviously” inappropriate Wednesday, had told reporters Thursday, “No. I don’t think we would [pursue impeachment], actually. I don’t think that’s at all the case.”
Trump’s lawyer denied that Trump sought to influence any FBI probe and claimed that the president never demanded Comey’s loyalty.
But Clinton was sent to trial in the Senate in 1998 for “matters less serious than the ones before us now,” Inglis tweeted.
Inglis, who had voted in favor of all four articles of impeachment against Clinton, which included allegations of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power, nevertheless said on Twitter that Ryan should focus on the Russia probe rather than “draft articles of impeachment.”
It’s not yet clear whether Trump obstructed justice and should be impeached, Inglis said.
“[The investigation] should sound like very serious lawmakers who are looking into very serious allegations at the heart of our republic. That’s not what I’m hearing yet [from my party],” Inglis told Yahoo News. Inglis now runs, a group that pushes conservative policy solutions to climate change.
Inglis concluded his tweets with a final message to Ryan and the rest of his party: “Put the country first.”

Please Donate

Apparently we Americans are so used to “BS” in the news and from our elected officials that we cannot see the truth even when it affects our day-to-day lives. We elected a scammer based on BS much like we elected members of Congress on the same basis. Now we have another “Watergate” situation brewing. While all of this is happening our Congress is busily working to impose more burdens on the least of us by altering or eliminating current Health care (ACA) and financial protections (Dodd-Frank). I cannot personally speak for everyone but I can offer my opinion based on what I have read, remember and read daily. Our political system was designed to offer a method of  having all citizens represented along with their views. What we have come to is 535 seta fillers whose views are not always ours and who make every attempt to insure us that they are looking out for us. According to history, if you tell a lie long enough and often enough it becomes the “truth”, then we had a world war with the murder of millions of  people based on ethnicity and birth. Now we have a similar scenario in several countries producing millions of murdered and displaced individuals based on the same standards. The difference is now we have instant communication where the truth is often misread or obscured by true sounding lies. Our current local and national administrations at not good for us much like overeating or smoking.

Please Donate

If the banks and insurance companies were more trustworthy there would be no need for Dodd Frank or Volcker. Our Dupublicans do not have the interests of the oft quoted American people in mind when the legislate.MA

WASHINGTON, June 8 (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday voted largely along party lines to replace the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, a move that is expected to die in the Senate but open the door to revamping or eliminating regulations that came out of the 2007-09 financial crisis.
The bill, called the CHOICE act, was approved by a vote of 233-to-186. Authored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, a Republican, it gives banks a choice between complying with Dodd-Frank or holding onto more capital.
It also restructures the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created under Dodd-Frank to guard individuals against fraud in lending. Democrats are fiercely opposed to restructuring the CFPB.
The U.S. Senate is not expected to take up the bill in its entirety, even though it has the backing of President Donald Trump, a Republican, largely because of the threat that Democrats will use a filibuster to stall it.
The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan evaluator of legislation, estimates the bill would save the federal government $24 billion over a decade, mostly due to the lifting of the government’s authority to step in and unwind failing institutions.
The legislation also rescinds the Volcker rule that limits the type of trading banks can do with their own money and the ability of government regulators to designate non-bank institutions, mainly insurance companies, as “systemically important,” which triggers increased oversight and requirements to hold more capital.
(Reporting by Lisa Lambert and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Leslie Adler)

Please Donate

You would think that President of The United States had higher priorities than tweeting about other world leaders.MA

6 / 30

The Washington Post
Jenna Johnson
6 hrs ago

Neighbor: Attacker asked about rented moving van

© Reuters/Reuters President Trump has been critical of London Mayor Sadiq Khan following the terrorist attacks on Saturday.
President Trump has reignited a year-long public battle with London Mayor Sadiq Khan, one of the most prominent Muslim politicians in Western Europe, drawing criticism for reviving the feud in the wake of a terrorist attack.
In the two days since a group of terrorists killed seven people and injured many others on London Bridge on Saturday night, Trump has tweeted several times about the attack and used it to promote his travel ban, which is being blocked by the courts.
Among the president’s barrage of tweets have been two pointed messages directed at Khan.
“At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terrorist attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’ ” Trump tweeted Sunday morning, misrepresenting a comment the mayor made over the weekend when he told the city’s residents to not be alarmed by an increased police presence in the coming days. Trump was criticized for the tweet, but Monday morning he dived right back into the controversy: “Pathetic excuse by London Mayor Sadiq Khan who had to think fast on his ‘no reason to be alarmed’ statement. MSM is working hard to sell it!”
Although Khan has responded to past attacks from the president, he has refrained from doing so this week, with his office saying on Sunday that the mayor “has more important things to do than respond to Donald Trump’s ill-informed tweet.”
Khan, a human rights lawyer and practicing Muslim whose parents are from Pakistan, has repeatedly challenged Trump’s calls to ban Muslims or people from majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States, saying the president has an “ignorant view of Islam.” Trump, meanwhile, has said that “it is ignorant for him to say that” and has raised questions about London’s approach to confronting terrorism.
During the White House briefing Monday, a reporter asked deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders if the president went after Khan because he’s Muslim.
“Not at all,” Sanders said, “and I think to suggest something like that is utterly ridiculous.”
The president’s tweets come as London grapples with the aftermath of the attack and Khan tries to explain that the religious beliefs of the terrorists involved are not the same beliefs embraced by him and most of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.
“The action of these three men on Saturday night was cowardly, was evil,” Khan said at a news conference Monday. “And I’m angry and furious that these three men are seeking to justify their actions by using the faith that I belong to. . . . The ideology they follow is perverse, it is poisonous, and it has no place in Islam. And I condemn this terrorist act but also the poisonous ideology these men and others follow.”
The president’s decision to lash out at the London mayor was widely questioned, with several critics asking why Trump was picking a fight with Khan as his city attempts to recover from Saturday’s attacks. Some noted that after a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando in June 2016, Khan tweeted: “I stand with the City of Orlando against hate and bigotry. My thoughts are with all the victims of this horrific attack #lovewins.”
Trump’s tweets were widely mocked in Britain, where the overwhelming mood is one of unity against terrorism and praise for security services. Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour Party, accused the president of lacking “grace” and “sense.” British Prime Minister Theresa May, who has tried to foster a productive relationship with Trump, came to Khan’s defense Monday, telling journalists that the mayor was “doing a good job, and it’s wrong to say anything else.”
Lewis Lukens, the acting ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in London, tweeted Sunday: “I commend the strong leadership of the @MayorofLondon as he leads the city forward after this heinous attack.”
Suhaib Webb — an imam who leads Center DC, which has a large online youth following — said he is angry that the president and those close to him are “quick to pull the trigger on anything that has to do with Islam or involves a person of color.”
“I think it’s also extremely embarrassing as Americans that our president is engaged in a Twitter war with the mayor of a city in a sovereign country,” Webb said. “It’s shameful that we’ve reinforced a bully personality. . . . We have someone who is unhinged.”
Khan, a member of the Labour Party, took office in May 2016. Much of last year’s mayoral race focused on Khan’s religion and family background, and his then-rival Zac Goldsmith accused him of having “repeatedly legitimized those with extremist views.”
“What I think the election showed was that actually there is no clash of civilization between Islam and the West,” Khan said in an interview with Time magazine. When asked about Islamist extremists, he said: “What better antidote to the hatred they spew than someone like me being in this position?”
Soon after Khan became mayor, then-candidate Trump told the New York Times that he would make an exception to his proposed ban on foreign Muslims for Khan — an offer he turned down.
“I think Donald Trump has ignorant views about Islam. It’s not just about me. I don’t want to be the exception to be allowed to go to America,” Khan said in an interview on a British morning show in May 2016. “You can be a Muslim and you can be European.”
Trump wasted little time firing back. “He doesn’t know me, never met me, doesn’t know what I am all about,” he said. “I think they are very rude statements. Frankly, tell him I will remember those statements.”
Abigail Hauslohner and Samantha Schmidt in Washington and Griff Witte in London contributed to this report.

Please Donate

Worth reading. MA.

Fred Decker
Guest Columnist

A year ago, Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives staged a sit-in demanding a vote on federal gun-safety bills following the shootings at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. The National Rifle Association’s lobbying was largely blamed for no vote happening. But looking deeper, the Second Amendment with the unique American individualism wrapped around it underlies all. It is America’s fundamental gun problem.
As Michael Waldman at the Brennan Center for Justice suggests in Politico Magazine (2014), the NRA’s construing of the Second Amendment as an unconditional “right” to own and carry guns (a “right” beyond actual constitutional law in Supreme Court rulings) is why it thrives and has clout.
Without clout derived from Second Amendment hyperbole, we might not have, for instance, “stand your ground” laws in more than 20 states starting with Florida in 2005, laws that professors Cheng Cheng and Mark Hoekstra report in the Journal of Human Resources (2013) do not deter crime and are associated with more killing.

Fred Decker is a sociologist in Bowie, Md., with a background in health and social policy research. He earned his doctorate from Florida State University.
Pockets of America were waiting for the NRA’s Second Amendment fertilizer.

For many gun advocates, the gun is an important aspect of one’s identity and self-worth, a symbol of power and prowess in their cultural groups. Dan Kahan at Yale University with co-investigators studied gun-safety perceptions and wrote in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2007) how those most likely “to see guns as safest of all” were “the persons who need guns the most in order to occupy social roles and display individual virtues within their cultural communities.”
Or, as the essayist Alec Wilkinson writes more starkly on The New Yorker’s website (2012), although “the [gun] issue is treated as a right and a matter of democracy” underlying all is “that a gun is the most powerful device there is to accessorize the ego.”
A gun owner carrying his semiautomatic long rifle into a family department store, like Target, in a state permitting such if asked why will likely say because it is his “right.” He is unlikely to reveal the self-gratification gained from demonstrating the prowess and power of his identity, gained from using the gun “to accessorize the ego.” The Second Amendment here is convenient clothing to cover deeper unspoken needs, needs that go beyond the understandable pleasures and functions of typical hunting, for instance.
Australia is often mentioned as an example of nationwide gun-safety legislation reducing gun violence. Following the 1996 massacre of 35 people in Port Arthur, Australia, the government swiftly passed substantial gun-safety legislation. And as Professors Simon Chapman, Philip Alpers and Michael Jones wrote in JAMA’s June 2016 issue, “[F]rom 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun-law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred.”

But Australia also has nothing akin to the Second Amendment.
Anthropologist Abigail Kohn studied gun owners in the U.S. and Australia who were engaged in sport shooting. She describes in the Journal of Firearms and Public Policy (2004) how “it is immediately apparent when speaking to American shooters that they find it impossible to separate their gun ownership, even their interest in sport shooting, from a particular moral discourse around self, home, family, and national identity.”
And thus, “American shooters are hostile to gun control because just as guns represent freedom, independence — the best of American core values — gun control represents trampling on those core values.”
In contrast, the Australians “view guns as inseparable from shooting sports.” And “perhaps most importantly, Australian shooters believe that attending to gun laws, respecting the concept of gun laws, is a crucial part of being a good shooter; this is the essence of civic duty that Australian shooters conflate with being a good Australian.” While the Australian shooters thought some gun-safety policies were “useless and stupid,” they thought that overall gun-safety measures were “a legitimate means by which the government can control the potential violence that guns can do.”
Unlike Australia (itself an individualist-oriented country), America has the Second Amendment. And that amendment has fostered a unique individualism around the gun, an individualism perpetrating more harm than safety.
Maybe someday the Second Amendment will no longer reign as a prop serving other purposes and, thus, substantive federal gun-safety legislation happens. But as Professor Charles Collier wrote in Dissent Magazine: “Unlimited gun violence is, for the foreseeable future, our [America’s] fate and our doom (and, in a sense, our punishment for [Second Amendment] rights-based hubris).”
The Second Amendment, today, is a song of many distorted verses. A song of a uniquely American tragedy.
Fred Decker is a sociologist in Bowie, Md., with a background in health and social policy research. He earned his doctorate from Florida State University.
Copyright © 2017, Orlando Sentinel
National Rifle Association of America Yale University Florida State University

Please Donate

The recent split in the Arab nations seems to be a result of the President Trumps visit. It is remotely possible that that visit was a factor however my opinion is that this split was well under way and Trumps visit is being used as a “hat”


Libya and Yemen join four Arab nations in severing ties with Qatar as Gulf crisis deepens

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Yemen and Egypt accused Qatar of supporting terrorism, opening up the worst rift in years among some of the most powerful states in the Arab world.

world Updated: Jun 05, 2017 17:09 IST

Agencies, Dubai

Iran — long at odds with Saudi Arabia and a behind-the-scenes target of the move — immediately blamed US President Donald Trump for setting the stage during his recent trip to Riyadh.

Gulf Arab states and Egypt have already long resented Qatar’s support for Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood which they regard as a dangerous political enemy.

The coordinated move, with Yemen and Libya’s eastern-based government joining in later, created a dramatic rift among the Arab nations, many of which are in OPEC

Announcing the closure of transport ties with Qatar, the three Gulf states gave Qatari visitors and residents two weeks to leave. Qatar was also expelled from the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen.

Oil giant Saudi Arabia accused Qatar of backing militant groups — some backed by regional arch-rival Iran — and broadcasting their ideology, an apparent reference to Qatar’s influential state-owned satellite channel Al Jazeera.

“(Qatar) embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS (Islamic State) and al-Qaeda, and promotes the message and schemes of these groups through their media constantly,” Saudi state news agency SPA said.

It accused Qatar of supporting what it described as Iranian-backed militants in its restive and largely Shia Muslim-populated Eastern region of Qatif and in Bahrain.

Qatar said it was facing a campaign aimed at weakening it, denying it was interfering in the affairs of other countries.

“The campaign of incitement is based on lies that had reached the level of complete fabrications,” the Qatari foreign ministry said in a statement.

Iran points at US

Iran saw America pulling the strings.

“What is happening is the preliminary result of the sword dance,” Hamid Aboutalebi, deputy chief of staff of Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, tweeted in a reference to Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia.

Trump and other US officials participated in a traditional sword dance during the trip in which he called on Muslim countries to stand united against Islamist extremists and singled out Iran as a key source of funding and support for militant groups.

US secretary of state Rex Tillerson told reporters in Sydney on Monday that the spat would not effect the fight against Islamist militants and that Washington has encouraged its Gulf allies to resolve their differences.

A split between Doha and its closest allies can have repercussions around the Middle East, where Gulf states have used their financial and political power to influence events in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Kremlin and Turkey urge dialogue

The Kremlin commented on the decision by a number of Arab nations to sever diplomatic relations with Qatar and said on Monday it is in Moscow’s interest to have a “stable and peaceful” situation in the Gulf.

Moscow also hopes that the current diplomatic row in the Gulf will not affect “the common determination and resolve” in the joint fight against “international terrorism”, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told a conference call with reporters.

Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said he was saddened by a rift between Qatar and other Arab states, and called for dialogue to resolve the dispute.

“We see the stability in the Gulf region as our own unity and solidarity,” Cavusoglu told a news conference.

“Countries may of course have some issues, but dialogue must continue under every circumstance for problems to be resolved peacefully. We are saddened by the current picture and will give any support for its normalisation,” Cavusoglu said.

India not affected

India will not be impacted by some Gulf countries cutting off diplomatic ties with Qatar, external affairs minister Sushma Sara said on Monday.

“There is no challenge arising out of this for us. This is an internal matter of GCC (Gulf Coordination Council). Our only concern is about Indians there. We are trying to find out if any Indians are stuck there,” she told reporters.

Read | The Qatar-Gulf Arab nations conflict is not good news for India


The economic fallout loomed immediately, as Abu Dhabi’s state-owned Ethihad Airways, Dubai’s Emirates Airline and budget carrier Flydubai said they would suspend all flights to and from Doha from Tuesday morning until further notice.

Qatar Airways said on its official website it had suspended all flights to Saudi Arabia.

Qatar’s stock market index sank 7.5% with some of the market’s top blue chips hardest hit.

The measures are more severe than during a previous eight-month rift in 2014, when Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE withdrew their ambassadors from Doha, again alleging Qatari support for militant groups. At that time, travel links were maintained and Qataris were not expelled.

The diplomatic broadside threatens the international prestige of Qatar, which hosts a large US military base and is set to host the 2022 World Cup. It has for years presented itself as a mediator and power broker for the region’s many disputes.

A Qatar Airways aircraft is seen at a runway of the Eleftherios Venizelos International Airport in Athens. (Reuters File Photo)

Kristian Ulrichsen, a Gulf expert at the US-based Baker Institute, said if Qatar’s land borders and air space were closed for any length of time “it would wreak havoc on the timeline and delivery” of the World Cup.

“It seems that the Saudis and Emiratis feel emboldened by the alignment of their regional interests — toward Iran and Islamism — with the Trump administration,” Ulrichsen said. “(They) have decided to deal with Qatar’s alternative approach on the assumption that they will have the (Trump) administration’s backing.”

Qatar used its media and political clout to support long-repressed Islamists during the 2011 pro-democracy “Arab Spring” uprisings in several Arab countries.

Muslim Brotherhood groups allied to Doha are now mostly on the backfoot in the region, especially after a 2013 military takeover in Egypt ousted the elected Islamist president.

The former army chief and now president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, along with the new government’s allies in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, blacklist the Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation.

Egypt, the Arab world’s most populous nation, said on its state news agency that Qatar’s policy “threatens Arab national security and sows the seeds of strife and division within Arab societies according to a deliberate plan aimed at the unity and interests of the Arab nation.”

Oil prices rose after the moves against Qatar, which is the biggest supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and a major seller of condensate — a low-density liquid fuel and refining product derived from natural gas.

Please Donate

A recent Fox news show had contributor Nigel Farage calling for internment camps for Muslims was met with pushback from fellow host Clayton Morris. Internment camps have been touted as a solution against “other” groups for centuries , these “camps”  were used in many countries disguised as “communities”  but in reality were ghettos that contained certain races and religious groups. These ghettos were created by force or through quasi legal means. The Nazi internment camps were in essence “ghettos”  of death. The Native American “reservations” were and still are ghettos. African Americans were redlined into ghettos in many major cities. Some ethnic groups are still  ghettoized in some areas. To be clear: this is the defined meaning of Ghetto as it applies in  this  case:

Ghetto: “Any section of  a city in which many members of a minority group live, or to which  they are restricted as by social discrimination”. 

Reservation: Public land set aside for a special use, as for American Indians.

Internment: Internment is the imprisonment or confinement[1] of people, commonly in large groups, without trial. The term is especially used for the confinement “of enemy citizens in wartime or of terrorism suspects”.[2] Thus, while it can simply mean imprisonment, it tends to refer to preventive confinement, rather than confinement after having been convicted of some crime. Use of these terms is subject to debate and political sensitivities.

The amassing  of certain groups to deflect, defer or defuse the power of people by confining them in particular areas is Racism and in many cases denial of religious freedom. This activity has not changed a lot in hundreds of years yet we as human beings still allow it by action or lack of action. There will always be Racists, religious bigots and anti anyone who is different type people but we do not have to elect them to office because of a few “buzz words and sound bites” or because we are upset with the Government. These outspoken “leaders?” usually have real solutions for any of us and will stunt the growth of us all  financially and personally. We will always have people who have different opinions even to extremes but we do not have to elect them to office or allow them to hijack our democracy. The real tragedy is that we all are looking for the same things but have not found a way to accept the non-essential differences between us and embrace the sameness to work towards a common goal.

Please Donate

June 1, 20173:36 PM ET
NPR Staff

The main goal of the Paris deal was to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. Beyond that point, scientists worry that catastrophic impacts of warming become irreversible.
NASA Handout/Getty Images
President Trump announced Thursday that the U.S. will leave the Paris climate deal.
Here are five things that could be affected by the decision.
1. The coal industry
Even coal companies had lobbied the Trump administration to stay in the agreement.
They said they needed a seat at the table during international climate discussions to advocate for coal’s place in the global energy mix. The industry also wants financial support for technology to capture and store carbon emissions, something that could keep coal plants operating longer even as cities, states and other countries work to address climate change.
While President Trump had promised to “cancel” the Paris deal to boost coal, the decision is not likely to create more jobs. The industry is in a long-term decline as it faces competition from cheaper natural gas and — increasingly — wind and solar. Some utilities are also responding to customer demand for renewable power, and the policies of any one administration have little impact on those decisions. “As a utility, we’re trying to plan many years out into the future,” says Ron Roberts of Puget Sound Energy.

2. The climate
The main goal of the Paris deal was to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (or, aspirationally, even 1.5 degrees). Beyond that point, scientists worry that catastrophic impacts of warming become irreversible. The various Paris pledges by each nation were not actually enough to achieve that target. And even with the environmental regulations passed under President Barack Obama, the U.S. was unlikely to meet its original commitment — to reduce carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels. Now, the U.S. may fall further from that goal.
That said, U.S. carbon emissions will still probably continue to decline, at least for a few years. Market forces are pushing utilities to switch from coal to natural gas or renewable power. “We are on a path to reduce emissions below 2005 levels by about 15 to 17 percent in 2020,” says Kate Larsen of the Rhodium Group.
But the Trump administration is rolling back a host of other climate regulations, and that impact will start to be felt in a few years. Economist Marc Hafstead of Resources for the Future says if economic growth picks up, leaving the Paris deal may mean overall U.S. emissions drop only by 10 percent.
3. U.S. global leadership
Trump’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, warned against leaving the Paris deal. It puts the U.S. in a very small camp; the only other countries not part of the agreement are Syria, which is in the midst of a civil war, and Nicaragua, which argued that the Paris accord did not go far enough to curb global emissions. Former Secretary of State John Kerry calls Trump’s decision “an irresponsible walking back of American leadership.”

Instead of putting America first, Kerry tells NPR’s Morning Edition, Trump is putting the nation last. Kerry accuses Trump of basing his decision on “alternative facts,” calling it “one of the most disastrous, shallow, untruthful decisions a president of the United States has made in my lifetime.”
The European Union’s top climate change official, Miguel Arias Canete, calls it a “sad day for the global community” but adds that the “world can continue to count on Europe for global leadership in the fight against climate change.” China, too, is poised to take a stronger role on climate diplomacy. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres is counting on that and argues there are economic benefits to this. “The sustainability train has left the station,” he said earlier this week. “Those who embrace green technologies will set the gold standard for economic leadership in the 21st century.”
4. President Trump’s public support (but maybe not the part that counts)
Most Americans want the U.S. to stay in the Paris climate accord. But in bucking that broad public opinion, Trump is playing to his base.
A Washington Post poll in January found just 31 percent of those surveyed supported withdrawing from the Paris deal, while 56 percent were opposed. But conservative Republicans are far less supportive of the Paris agreement than liberal Democrats, according to the Pew Research Center.
Before taking office, Trump repeatedly dismissed climate change as a hoax and suggested that Obama-era climate regulations put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. Many conservative Republicans share the president’s climate skepticism. And less than a third support measures like the Clean Power Plan — Obama’s principal tool for meeting America’s Paris climate commitments.
Pulling out of the Paris accords will undoubtedly anger many Americans, but it keeps a promise to Trump’s core supporters. As small-government activist Grover Nyquist told the New York Times, “Everybody who hates Trump wants him to stay in Paris. Everybody who respects him, trusts him, voted for him, wishes for him to succeed, wants him to pull out.”
5. The U.S. economy
President Trump has repeatedly called the Paris accord a “bad deal” for the U.S. and said it will hurt the economy. One big outlay is the Green Climate Fund set up under the deal. Obama had committed the U.S. to contributing $3 billion to the fund, which aims to help developing countries adapt to climate change and develop low-emission energy technologies. Under Obama, the U.S. transferred $1 billion, but Trump’s budget proposal does not include payments for the rest.
Opponents of the Paris agreement also say imposing regulations to reduce carbon emissions is too costly. “It’d be very, very expensive,” Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who has denied climate change is real, told WBUR’s Here & Now. “It’d constitute probably the largest tax increase in the history of America.” It’s not clear whether that is true, but the coal industry has spent many millions installing technology to curb its emissions in recent years.
That said, the White House could easily have stayed in the Paris accord even as it opted not to pay into the climate fund or impose emissions cuts.
Of course, supporters of Paris say if the U.S. withdrawal leads to more severe climate change, that would greatly harm the U.S. economy.
Nate Rott, Chris Joyce, Michele Kelemen, Scott Horsley and Jennifer Ludden contributed to this report.

Please Donate

%d bloggers like this: