Via Breitbart: Despite heavy lobbying from G7 leaders, President Donald Trump declined to endorse the Paris Climate Agreement in a joint pledge of support for one of former President Barack Obama’s signature achievements in office.
Trump’s decision upset world leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, desperate to convince the president of the agreement’s merits.
“The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said, describing discussions with Trump about climate change “very unsatisfying.”
For opponents of the agreement, the decision is a welcome development after the president’s economic adviser, Gary Cohn, told reporters that Trump was “evolving” on the issue. But it still was not a fulfillment of his campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement.
The president announced on Twitter that he would make the decision next week of whether to remain in the agreement.
I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2017
If he doesn’t just go with the settled science that the accord will make no measurable difference to global temperature and is thus an admitted statist suppression of human welfare for some perverted sense of virtue , he should , as a number of people have suggested , kick it to the senate where it will surely be voted down .
The U.S. Senate has ENOUGH ALREADY to deal with! Aaa! How many working hours do they have until their summer break?? There is no need to involved the Senate. Just a WASTE of time.
The Paris deal/thing/Plan/Programme/whatever is NULL AND VOID. It is not voidable. It is void.
Janice
So to be clear… if Trump does not pull out of Paris, will he lose your support?
That depends on who is running against him in 2020, Simon.
Janis
You should be a politician…..
Janice,
Apologies re name.
Just put it on the list, and keep bumping it for actual, real and important matters. Pinky Reid showed us all how to do that!
Taking it to Senate is bad idea. You got three problems.
Democrats are in Lock-step with AGW sham. Party before Country.
GOPe (Elitist Rs) who want their piece of Power and Profit Pie.
Republicans who lack Spine to say No to AGW scam.
Let’s see any of them, Democrat or Republican, justify, the enormous amounts of spending that will be required by U.S. taxpayers in order to comply with this agreement. And while the U.S. taxpayers are hit with Trillons of dollars in expenditures, most of the rest of the world is paying nothing, and China and India aren’t even playing the game until 2030. Let’s see them justify giving American money away on this boondoggle.
A fourth problem with submission to the Senate is that it would provoke the “resistance” to stage unprecedented demonstrations in DC and other unheard-of levels of petitioning and lobbying of congress that might overawe it. Bear in mind that only 22 of 52 Republican senators signed last week’s open letter to Trump urging him to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The greens would only need to get 19 of the remaining 30 to vote in favor of it to pass the treaty.
Probably most Republican senators have a weak grasp of the subject and would be impressed by the sort of seemingly impressive talking points that were prominently spouted by Dems in the House during their sit-in on the topic last year. There would not be time or the atmosphere for a thoughtful debate.
Roger,
100% correct. The Senate circus isn’t required here. Obama avoided it and now it’s payback.
The Paris accord fails to recognize CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
A potentially larger mistake than failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate, is failing to realize what actually does. The still-rising water vapor is rising about three times as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone.
The warmer temperature is welcome but the added WV increases the risk of flooding. IMO all rainwater retaining systems (dams, dikes, etc.) should be upgraded from design for 100 yr floods to design for 10,000 yr floods.
Just asking for the proof of ur meadurements of increased water vapour.
Hen – Satellite measurements by NASA/RSS are reported monthly. Anomaly numerical data through April, 2017 are at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201704.time_series.txt . They are graphed in Fig 3 of my analysis at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . My analysis includes additional information and relevant links.
There is close to a ZERO probability Trump will withdraw completely from the Paris Agreement next week, which can be added to a long list of broken promise: no Obamacare repeal, no tax rate cuts, no WALL, nonmajor spending cuts, no major business regulation cuts.
About the only major promise he made was his excellent selection of SCOTUS Justice Gorsuch, which was great, but that’s reality it.
He’ll “compromise” by lowering US’ non-binding CO2 sequestration targets to appease the loony Left, which will be a completely meaningless gesture, and will still waste $100’s of billions, if not $trillions for absolutely no reason whatsoever..
You are likely wrong. Replacing Obamacare and restructuring the tax code are ultimately up to Congress, as is appropriating funding for the Wall. Trump can unilaterally withdraw from UNFCCC and Paris. He just needs a good speech—three main points: science isn’t settled, renewables are intermittent abd expensive, China and India won’t play. Withdrawing helps make America Great Again, rather than pandering to overblown alarm based on faulty models.
Trump has been under constant attack from day one of his presidency. Imagine how much more his administration could have done except for the fact that the top Dems are at war with him.
It hasn’t been the top Dems that are the problem but rather the top Republicans who are causing most of the delay. I get the feeling that Ryan positively hates Trump and will do pretty much anything to shove a spoke into his agenda. McConnell is just a K Street mouthpiece at this point in his career which would be fine except he’s also Senate Majority Leader. I wish someone would find where the GOP hid their spines.
“The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said.
In trying to understand what Merkel means by “globalization,” I found this explanation on Wiki:
“Globalization refers to the free movement of goods, capital, services, people, technology and information. It is the action or procedure of international integration of countries arising from the conversion of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture. … Further, environmental challenges such as global warming, cross-boundary water and air pollution, and overfishing of the ocean are linked with globalization.”
The free movement of goods and technology sounds OK to me. But the free movement of people, the idea of “international integration,” and the environmental aspects of globalization worry me a great deal. It’s easy to see how these concepts have influenced the policies of both Merkel and Obama. Instead of helping refugees in or near their own homeland, they are spreading them around the world. I always wondered why they would go to the extra expense and risk of moving people into faraway lands and cultures that are strange to them. But if your goal is to water down the local culture and create a more globalized world view, these things begin to make a little more sense. It seems clear to me that these actions will create far more problems than they solve.
What Merkel, Obama, and other elites really want is to create a global government like an expanded EU that will govern the entire world. They don’t care what damage they cause in the process. Sadly, even the last few Popes have called for a “world political authority” with “real teeth” to accomplish certain goals. They listed these goals as “to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace, to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration.” According to the Pope, such a global authority would also “open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale” It’s almost as if these people are all reading from the same script. After having just met with many of them, will Donald Trump be able to resist joining them in their attempt to rule the world? We will soon see.
Merkel hasn’t changed her view on globalization since her days with the DDR’s Stasi. The wall came down, but who actually won?
“The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said.
In trying to understand what Merkel means by “globalization,” I found this explanation on Wiki:
“Globalization refers to the free movement of goods, capital, services, people, technology and information. It is the action or procedure of international integration of countries arising from the conversion of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture. … Further, environmental challenges such as global warming, cross-boundary water and air pollution, and overfishing of the ocean are linked with globalization.”
The free movement of goods and technology sounds OK to me. But the free movement of people, the idea of “international integration,” and the environmental aspects of globalization worry me a great deal. It’s easy to see how these concepts have influenced the policies of both Merkel and Obama. Instead of helping refugees in or near their own homeland, they are spreading them around the world. I always wondered why they would go to the extra expense and risk of moving people into faraway lands and cultures that are strange to them. But if your goal is to water down the local culture and create a more globalized world view, these things begin to make a little more sense, although it seems clear to me that these actions will create far more problems than they solve.
What Merkel, Obama, and other elites really want is to create a global government, like an expanded EU or expanded UN, that will govern the entire world. They don’t care what damage they cause in the process. Will Donald Trump be able to resist joining them in their attempt to rule the world? We will soon find out.
Louis:
I know what globalization is, but I want to know is what Merkel means by by the agreement “shapes globalization”?
As I said above, it seems to me that “shapes globalization” could mean anything (unless, of course, somebody knows different).
Richard
I think that it may refer to CAGW being their most important tool in their box to advance their agenda. It will bring in massive amounts of money from taxes/carbon credit schemes, while at the same time it gives bureaucrats the power to wield regulatory control over the lives of billions of people in the name of CAGW.
As the quote says, “environmental challenges such as global warming… are linked with globalization.” Merkel clearly believes that climate change and immigration help shape globalization. She also knows these policies require a global authority to enforce. Even the Pope called for a global authority with “real teeth” to enforce climate, immigration, and redistribution policies. So climate change and immigration provide the excuse needed to setup a world government. Once that is in place, the rest of their agenda will follow. They will then be able to shape globalization to their liking. But to accomplished this, they need Trump to play along.
Richard,
Have you ever read “1984” by George Orwell? That’s what UN globalism is in a nutshell. Climate is proxy to that agenda.
Of course you don’t know.
cwon14:
Of course I have read 1984.
I asked if anyone knows what Merkel meant. Others gave given their opinions but make clear that they also don’t know. Your (rather extreme) opinion is also not knowledge.
Richard
Your pandering AGW skepticism and political denial are emblematic of the dark road the world has had to experience in the name of globalism and it’s UN creature claiming global climate authority.
Back bench skeptics who refused to connect the dots and reek of the same establishment condescending tones. You’ve been wrong in core principles for years on this forum.
cwon14:
I asked “what Merkel means by by the agreement “shapes globalization”. Not knowing the answer you could have said nothing, but instead you asked me a question and stated a silly and extreme opinion. I answered your question and you showered me with childish and untrue abuse.
I am not a “back bench skeptic” and it is ludicrous to suggest that I “pander” to AGW skepticism. I have been an opponent of the AGW-scare for decades and can reasonably claim to represent the front bench of AGW skepticism.
On the other hand, you are an anonymous internet pop-up who has yet to be seen to be right about anything.
Richard
RC, you cling to that regressive myth that climate alarmism is part of a valid science premise rather then a political imperative of the globalist and collectivist variety. A totally counter productive skeptic premise as the horrid history of alarmist gains have proven. Yes, facilitating and collaborative skepticism.
The anonymity claim is bogus, it’s your content that I judge not your internet handle. It’s completely impersonal to me, your ideas are what I find weak, obtuse and repelling. Don’t take it personally.
cwon14:
Your posts only consist of irrational and unsubstantiated rants together with personal abuse thrown from behind the coward’s screen of anonymity. Do take it personally.
Richard
Just remember RC, it’s Trump that brought the victory of Paris not pinhead skeptics babbling “it really is a science debate” when it was always collectivism driving the agenda and actual science into the dirt. Which form of skeptic had the lion share of credit for defeating Paris? You and your nonsense that AGW beliefs were driven by “science” or I and defacto the Trump skeptic that called climate the Marxist proxy that it always was??
No need to reply, I already know the answer. It’s a good day, I’ll just put your comments back on the ignore file.
cwon14:
I am replying to your nonsense for the benefit of others.
President Trump seems to be ‘digging in his heels’ in rejection of the Paris Accord. If so then it is because some people – including me – have successfully informed his advisors that the global warming scare is economically damaging for the USA and is scientifically dubious.
Anonymous and abusive internet trolls such as yourself were no help in achieving the influence on President Trump.
Richard
The delusion;
” then it is because some people – including me – have successfully informed his advisors that the global warming scare is economically damaging for the USA and is scientifically dubious.”
No Richard, no. That was clear 35 years ago. The reason Trump ran on the Paris exit is that core parts of the skeptic community know climate policy is a vast globalist, leftist central planning agenda that voters despise. A force you refuse to acknowledge after decades of plain in sight evidence.
Enough already, you’re too obtuse to deal with. The SINO as bad as the RINO. Decades of technical ambivalence while ignoring the core Marxist narrative that invented the AGW narrative to begin with. You don’t even have hostage value in the climate war. The other side knows your maximum value to them is your claim as a “skeptic”.
cwon14:
Margaret Thatcher started the global warming scare and she was not a Marxist.
I am a skeptic of man-made global warming and an opponent of the global warming scare so I bow to your superior knowledge of “the other side”.
Richard
How about just keeping a promise ? Why should USA tax payers go further into debt to support a hoax ?
Why should USA tax payers support anything that will cost them $ Trillions , do virtually nothing at all
to alter the climate and hand “have not countries ” American jobs ?
This is a no brainer and if people like Al Gore don’t like it then you know punting it is a bloody good thing .
The Obama globalization “legacy ‘ was a con job and sell out of USA interests .
The oh so scary global warming swamp needs draining and Mr .Trump is about the only one with the balls to do it . His supporters are counting on it .
To keep his campaign promise, Trump will have to turn down a seat at the table with all the other world elites. That is not an easy decision for Donald Trump, especially with family members and some advisers pushing him to join the other world elites at the table. To do the right thing, he will have to make his ego secondary to his integrity. If he can do that, it will be a good sign for the rest of his Presidency.
I see your point, Louis, but, I think President Trump’s “ego” will work for</b him here.
Trump: And as for that Paris climate thing? Gone. {holds up high the piece of paper signed by B. Hussein, and rrrrrrrrrr–IP! — SMILE — immediately signs an Executive Memorandum of Repudiation formally denouncing B. Hussein’s deal}
Merkel, et al.: How DARE you! No seat at our table for YOU!
Trump: {smile} That’s fine, Chancellor, that’s just fine. I actually prefer it over here at the adults’ table with Nigel. Say, you guys need me to send over more serviettes? Doin’ okay for mustard for those hot dogs? Remember what we told you: you’ll have to eat all your peas to get dessert, now.
I like your thinking, Janice. I just hope Trump thinks like you do.
No, it is Donald’s table they all want to sit at, he is the one who is expected to pick up the check.
To be safe, just give it to the Senate to approve which will take months over the summer break to deal with. It will have zero chance of ever being approved, and due process was followed. Plus Trump will be off the hook for having killed Paris, as far as USA interests are concerned. That would be the easiest, safest and proper way of dealing with a very bad agreement made in Paris.
Are you “Bob Armstrong”??
In case you didn’t see this:
(me, above)
Signed,
One Who Signs the Paychecks of Two U.S. Senators
Not sure who you are talking about Janice, about “Bob Armstrong”. Maybe fill me in?
Trump already has enough daggers in his back, he doesn’t need to take the blame for killing Paris, when he can have the Senate do it for him. And let Paris stew on the back burner for another 6 months. I would bet anyone dollars to donuts that this is how it unfolds. As it should.
Obama knew this would never make it through Congress, that is why he tried the K Street Two Step. Put it on Senate’s to-do list and the first thing will be a motion to place it on the House’s to-do list, since it has to go there first either way. Long, slow, convoluted process, time it actually worked FOR America.
Au contraire, Trump will take the CREDIT for putting a dagger through the heart of the Paris Sc@m.
Re: “Bob Armstrong” — he sounds almost exactly like you! (I realized that it was unlikely you are using two names, just sort of kidding there)
Oh I see what happened Janice…I opened the comment page about 11:30 Am and started writing, and then went and made lunch, and then posted my comment an hour or so later. I see a Bob Armstrong made a similar comment above after I had refreshed my browser. Hence your puzzling comment about ‘Bob’. I thought maybe that was a new lexicon name for something…
But seriously, what if the courts tackle Trump and rule against him on any Paris decision he makes unilaterally? If the Senate makes the decision, then it is Judgement Proof. Do I have a point?
Hi, Mr. Williams…. oh, WILLIAMS, is it? lololol 🙂
I’ll just copy in what I wrote above (I’m lazy):
Mr. Sobchak, I understand your concerns, they have some basis. However, in U. S. jurisprudence, the courts apply conflict of laws principles. The U.S. Constitution’s requirement that this be a Senate-ratified treaty to be enforceable will control. There is NO Paris — anything. It is legally meaningless except in the most ephemeral of ways.
And add that there is no cause of action. There is no statute or common law principle or treaty upon which to base a claim for relief. President Trump will simply be making it perfectly clear where the U.S. stands. The “deal” is void. Not voidable, but void. It was never ratified by the U.S. Senate.
In other words, but for anti-constitutional rulings (the “agreement” is only advisory in the flimsiest of senses, here) any lawsuits trying to enforce this nullity will be thrown out on a Motion for Summary Judgment (for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted — and also because there is no issue upon which the plaintiff could reasonably expect to prevail at trial). And those anti-constitutionalist judges’ rulings will, ultimately, be overrulled by the Supreme Court of the United States.
You seem to consider as nothing my point that the Senate has far too much already to accomplish to clog their proceedings up with THIS. Pragmatic thinking is what an effective executive excels at: Trump will kill it himself.
Janice, I get your point about clogging up the Senate with this issue. And it is an important one. But it is a very important issue that should be navigated properly so as global diplomatic channels are kept open and the USA doesn’t get labeled as an unreliable partner, being that everyone in favor of Paris would blame Trump personally if he kills it, perhaps impacting other important international matters along the way over the next 3-8 years.
You make some interesting legal points… (You are perhaps a lawyer or paralegal? I am not a lawyer) but I think some lower level liberal courts could say that the Executive Order that Obama used to sign onto the Paris Accord, was legal since it is that international ‘agreement’ that was signed by the USA and could be deemed legally binding by a lower court. If your logic that the Paris Accord is already void, why didn’t any Court already strike it down? The point being that Trump reversing a signed international agreement may not be able to be undone by a similar EO by a future sitting President. I wonder if there is any precedent for a case similar in structure to this matter?
Prima Facie, I think that is what would happen with a lower court overruling Trump’s EO if Paris is unilateral rejected by Trump. Whether or not SCOTUS would uphold a lower courts decision is speculation. Perhaps not, but it is a risk. We will find out with the immigration cases when they make it to the SCOTUS, and that is jurisdiction that POTUS does have jurisdiction over. The one thing we both agree on is that Paris is a bad Agreement, and it should not be implemented by the USA as written.
By the simple expedient of dropping the Clean Power Plan (CPP), President Trump gutted Obama’s Executive Agreement formalizing the legal commitment of the U.S. to the Paris Accord (Agreement). The CPP was Obama’s linchpin for the Agreement; without the CPP, the Individually Determined Contributions of the U.S. could not be met.
Make no mistake about it; the Executive (our President) has the legal authority to commit the U.S. to international agreements on his own hook. Ask Rud.
The cleanest way out of the mess Obama left us with is to withdraw, after giving one year notice, from the UN’s fundamental climate agreement.
I have to disagree with sending it to the Senate. That gives Obama’s or any other President’s personal agreement the status of a Treaty potentially binding the US.
The Executive Branch has incrementally gained more power than it was ever intended to have. (ie The IRS, the EPA etc. All parts of the Executive Branch.)
Trump needs to do no more than say “NO” just as Obama said “yes”.
The MSM will blame Trump for killing Paris, but so what? They’ll “blame” him for anything he does until he “tows the line”.
I didn’t vote for him because he would “tow the line”.
I think the economic aspects of the Paris Agreement would kill the deal all by itself. Once people realize that the USA is stuck with most of the bills, they will reject it. I want to hear some Democrat Senators get up and defend wasting Trillions of dollars to accomplish little or nothing.
If Trump approves this deal he will gut his base. This is a key campaign promise that he must keep.
Ann Coulter, a prominent US conservative and early backer of Trump, has already put him on notice to start implementing.his campaign promises. Trump is a news junkie and undoubtedly knows this. If he backtracks on such a substantive issue, he loses her and any hope of conservative backing in the next election.
Ann needs to take a deep breath and relax. Trump is doing just fine.
The politically docile skeptic base only helps the climate fraud agenda. Paris goes or Trump goes, he’s committed already.
He deserves criticism for the fence straddle. Nothing looks mission ready next week.
If follows though there will calls for climate war trials from his enemies. It will dwarf the election usurping in scale.
Guaranteed!
Tell them once and for all. “The Emperor has no clothes”.
Look at his track record re campaign promises, and the actions he has or has attempted to make. Its pretty good. This was a big campaign promise. That sort of indicates the direction he is likely going. Otherwise it would have been two easy to issue a G7 communique as Merkel wanted, come home, and explain it. What Trump needs either way is a televised speech to explain his decision and its reasoning. My supposition is that he has the decision but not yet the speech.
From over the pond, my impression is that trump has to date enacted few of his campaign promise, mostly because they have been blocked. I would say he needs the credibility of getting something really big through the system. If he doesn’t come up with the goods on this one surely that will damage his standing with his voters?
Tonyb
What would be really great would be for Trump to reject the Paris agreement at the same time he announced putting skeptics into key positions at NOAA, NASA, etc. Do it all at once. Of course, the media will come unglued but it is better to do it all at once than give them ammo again and again.
This would also allow these skeptical scientists to counter the media attempts to claim it is anti-science. The media would be arguing with real scientists. It would force them to face a lot of science that they ignore today.
One of the things that we here can do is to write to Pres Trump and let him know how you feel. He’s a big man with broad shoulders but it doesn’t hurt to let him know there is a peanut gallery that is cheering for him.
It would be a good idea for all of us to write all our representatives and tell them how we feel about the Paris Agreement. Let them know how you feel and that you are watching.
On that point;
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact#page
I think calling the volunteers is more impactful then the emails. I’ll send telegrams as well.
The cheering won’t come until AFTER he has rejected the Paris Agreement.
The cheering should be reserved for when the entire leftist UN climate apparatus is socially and politically rejected by the US. No more IPCC, no globalist political funding dressed under “climate”.
Paris withdrawal will be a win but the follow up is even more important. There’s no point leaving the entire state climate fraud funding system in place as a leftist advocacy cartel which is what it always was.
I can hope President Trump understands the “dagger” with the Greenshirt cause. They must be eviscerated as the blowback will be enormous, far in excess of the election over turning effort.
Trump is right. “Nonsense remains nonsense, even if it is written on hand-made paper”. The Paris accord is, imho, such a nonsense.
This proverb is attributed to Frederick Lindemann, 1st Viscount Cherwell, advisor to Winston Churchill.
Well. In case Memorial Day in the U.S. goes unobserved at WUWT, here:
They did not fight so that a German Chancellor could tell the U.S. how to run its economy.
(youtube — “Will You Remember” — kind of a whiny singer, but, try to hear, really hear, the words — especially those quietly spoken by the old man in the white shirt….)
The U.S. soldier, airman, marine, or sailor did not fight so wind and solar and Tesla-like sc@ur momisuglymmers could bilk the U.S. taxpayer.
He did not fight to “save the planet.”
Back in ’45, he was fightin’ for me.
Make. America. Great. Again.
@ur momisugly President Trump: ….you know the story, you can say, “Nuts!” to them that stand in your way.
#(:))
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL!
(all around the world!! — ALL enjoy the benefit from the sacrifice of our war heroes currently serving and past: a free and strong United States of America).
Trump gave a good speech today at a U.S. military base in Italy right before he left Europe.
Trump told the story of an American sailor who was 23 years old and was sitting off the coast of Sicily in 1943, during World War II, awaiting the invasion by Allied forces. Thousands of troops and equipment were just off the coast of Sicily and the Germans were unaware of their approach.
This American sailor spotted a fire on a small American ship which threatened to give the invasion away if the fire reached the explosives that were onboard the vessel, so this sailor fought his way through very thick smoke and found the object that was burning and grabbed it with his bare hands and carried it over to the rail and threw it into the sea, and saved the invasion from discovery.
The sailor died shortly thereafter because of all the toxic smoke he breathed while doing this heroic deed. Just an average guy who rose to the occasion when he was called upon. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor postumously.
Yes, God Bless them all. You’ll never know all the heroic acts that take place on battlefields. Heroic acts are commonplace. Especially appreciate the troops of today because they are all volunteer and their small numbers require them to make mulitple trips to war-torn areas.
I thought two tours in Vietnam was a long time, but these guys today are doing six and even more tours. That has to be rough on everyone involved. They do have the internet though, so they can keep in touch a lot better than anytime in the past, but still, there’s no place like home. A video screen is a poor substitute.
I remember one of the first books I read at the library, when I was about 10 years old, was a book about Congressional Medal of Honor winners, and it had about a dozen cases in the book with a short story about what they did to win the medal.
And I thought how *glorious* it must be to do things like that, and I wanted to be just like them. But I noticed something a little disturbing. It seemed that in the process of getting their medal they were killed.
This caused me a little consternation, but I consoled myself by telling myself I would be one who lived, if I ever got in that situation.
I read all the military books the library had after that. 🙂
Dear TA,
Thank you for sharing that moving story. Even more, thank you for fighting against the spread of communism in Vietnam. South Vietnam (and lots of other regions) are doing quite well today, thanks to your efforts. Two tours in Vietnam! That was equal to about twenty of today’s (given the equipment, theater, Walter Cronkite, Jane Fonda, etc.).
And what a cool little boy you were (like so many of your era) — to WANT to serve your country like that. The wonderful thing is, the free world still has thousands of such freedom-loving, valiant, little boys and girls, thousands who love life more than the 1s!am!sts love death. Some of them just headed off to boot camp….
America will stay free, so long as there are enough of us who love it (i.e., the Constitutional values and the principles like free markets and honest dealing (including in science) which it stands for along with the deep, deep, devotion which all mentally/emotionally healthy Americans not brainwashed out of it have — both native born and naturalized — it’s in our blood somehow; we simply love our country). As it stands, we number in the millions. America is.
Gratefully,
Janice
Parle was indeed a sailor, but also an officer, the lowest possible, an ensign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Joseph_Parle
Excuse my nitpick, but it’s not the “Congressional Medal of Honor”. Its official name is “Medal of Honor”, however given in the name of Congress. It’s normally granted through the recipient’s military chain of command, hence the Executive branch, but can be awarded upon an act of Congress.
Trump disgusts me as a lying, cowardly, silver-spoon-in-mouth, draft-dodger during the Vietnam war, who now presumes to speak on behalf of men infinitely better than he. But I voted for him anyway, because Clinton is an even bigger crook and liar.
And contributed to his campaign, for which sin I’m now paying the price of an endless stream of dunning emails from his 2020 campaign, which may or may not even happen.
“The wonderful thing is, the free world still has thousands of such freedom-loving, valiant, little boys and girls, thousands who love life more than the 1s!am!sts love death. Some of them just headed off to boot camp…. ”
Thanks for that, Janice.
I think the secret to our (America’s) success is we do have a lot of really good solid people in this country. My experiences in the military gave me a confidence in the American people that maybe a lot of people don’t have.
Americans rise to the occasion. They do what it takes to win on the battlefield. You would see a guy who was just an average joe, someone you would never think would become a fierce warrior, and when the going got tough, all of sudden this quiet, unassuming fellow would become John Wayne, and do incredible feats under some of the most horrendous conditions. And this happened all the time. Time after time. Many unsung heroes out there.
It was like the people on Flight 97 back during the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. They found out what was going on over their cellphones, realized the situation they were in, and collectively decided to storm the cockpit and take on the terrorists. They succeeded in preventing the aircraft from getting to Washington DC, even though it cost them their lives.
They rose to the occasion. Americans always rise to the occasion. We have all seen them do it. We should take comfort in that.
Concerning Flight 97. I recall the story about the stewardess whose part in the attack on the cockpit was to prepare a pot of boiling water to throw on the terrorists once they got the door open. I’ve always wondered if she managed to hit her target. I hope she did. I hope she got at least one of them right in the face.
I wonder what those terrorists thought when they saw all those people breaking into the cockpit. These guys are serious!
“Parle was indeed a sailor”
Thanks for that, chimp. I missed his name when Trump was giving the speech, so didn’t incude it in the story.
“Trump disgusts me as a lying, cowardly, silver-spoon-in-mouth, draft-dodger during the Vietnam war, who now presumes to speak on behalf of men infinitely better than he.”
I volunteered for Vietnam service. After reading the Medal of Honor stories, how could I do any less. 🙂
Btw, the lying MSM were the impetus for me going to Vietnam. They were just as Liberal and just as partisan back in 1968, and they were definitely anti-war, and they lied me right into the Vietnam war.
I was initially sent to Wildflicken, Germany out of Advanced Training and was there for about nine months, and during that time I kept reading newspaper articles and every one of them were telling a story of defeat and death in Vietnam. Reading these article, you would think the U.S. military was about to get kicked completely out of South Vietnam by the 10-foot-tall North Vietnamese army.
And I kept reading this stuff and shaking my head and saying this can’t be true. There’s no way the U.S. can be losing this war. If that were true, then my whole worldview was wrong, and I had to find out, and so I went down and voluteered to transfer to Vietnam. Five other guys out of my unit went with me and did the same thing. I guess skepticism comes natural to me. 🙂
I thought it was the right thing to do to pushback on communism in South Vietnam. I was a believer in the Domino Theory and still am, so I thought there was a need for us doing what we were doing, which was defending South Vietnam from the communist North who were backed by the Soviet Union and China.
I arrived right after Tet 1968 and figured the U.S. was really going to go after the North Vietnamese now that they had launched that nation-wide attack. I figured we were going to be marching into Hanoi in the near future.
But as time went along I realized we were not going to march into Hanoi and end this war, we were going to sit south of the border and allow them to continuously attack us from their safe haven. For years.
So I didn’t sour on the reason for the war, but I did sour on how the war was being run. Allowing the enemy a safe haven and not knocking them out of the picture when you have the ability, is not the way to run a war. That’s the way Liberals run wars.
My brother was three years younger than me and when I came home from Vietnam he asked me what I thought he should do, because he was old enough to be subject to the draft, and I told him to do whatever he could to keep from going because the U.S. had no intention of winning that war.
The Liberals were in charge of the war effort, and all they wanted to do was get out of South Vietnam, not win any war there. The U.S. military eventually won the war even with all the restrictions put on it, and then, after all that blood, sweat and tears, two year later, the Liberals in Congress threw South Vietnam to the wolves by refusing to help when North Vietnam broke the peace agreement and invaded South Vietnam again.
By this time the South Vietnamese were well aware that the American Liberals were selling them down the river, and so when the North Vietnamese forces attacked, the South Vietnamese just threw down their weapons and ran away, because their last ally had abandoned them. This took place two years after all American combat troops had been withdrawn.
I can’t speak for the motivations of others concerning going or not going to Vietnam and how they handled the situation. That’s for them to contemplate.
As for Trump, I think Trump *does* think of the military as “his betters”. He even said as much not too long ago. I think he has genuine respect for the military and what they do. Don’t know anything about his draft status or how he handled that.
Trump was in school (Maritime Academy) under near-military training and discipline.
He was NOT a “draft dodger”. His record then compares to the democrat’s dear favorite John Kerry – who served 96 days in Vietnam (including indoctrination time and leave), got the medals he put himself in for, and left to return to Boston to serve out his “year” of Vietnam service working in the air conditioned spaces of the Boston office of his US Senator. His target the entire time. 96 days. And a few band-aids.
TA (11:25PM): A fine, accurate, complete, summary of that whole liberal betrayal of “do the right thing.”
Yes, indeed.
Todd Beamer, September 11, 2001
Janice, gotta love you.
Before being allowed to board any American flagged airliner, each passenger must accurately identify Todd Beamer’s picture, and loudly state: “Let’s roll!” Additionally, every crewmember must touch his picture and say: “Thank, you.”
The lessons of 9/11 have been forgotten by a majority of Americans.
must correct one point about lying john kerry, NO band aids were used on his self inflicted wounds…….3 purple hearts but not even ONE band aid needed for his “wounds”.
With regard to Trump respecting the members of the military, keep in mind that he had military training in a military school, so probably understands the mindset better than most, and I watched him one day in a conference room with a couple of dozen military members, a few weeks ago, and at one point Trump said something to the effect that being with these military people made him feel small. So I think Trump does indeed respect the military.
Probably even more so now that he sees what a good job they are doing for him. Trump handles it properly: He sees a problem he wants corrected, he tells the generals, and then he lets the generals decide the best way to accomplish that task and doesn’t micromanage it.
RACookPE1978, in case you skipped arithmetic classes while you were in grade school, 96 days for Kerry is greater than 0 days for President Bone-spurs.
Yea, How about those medals he threw. LOL You should try tinactin.
Thank You Janice
B
My pleasure, Bacullen.
During the election time Trump was striding with a sure step down a river of clear water, but now, now he is wading trough the muddy swamp. Time doesn’t stay still, it is another time, it is another water, and albeit ‘another’ hopefully wiser man ; no man can walk twice down the same river of time.
For the legal beagles touting how the US Justice system works, etc., just remember the 4th Circuit decided that campaign rhetoric is just reason for the Federal Courts to rule a legal, valid order by the President is unconstitutional but would be OK if Hillary had issued it were she President…basically anyone but Trump. The vaunted “rule of law” is now the “rule of a Federal Judges” thinks another person may be thinking while doing lawful act. Don’t be at all surprised if Kennedy decides to agree with the 4th Circuit and go out in a blaze of discovered rights for all humankind including elimination of all borders and enforcement.
This means the Federal Courts have become the Courtx of Final Oligarchy Rule. Any conjecture that the Federal Courts would not enforce the Paris climate accords over US laws and Constitution is simply wrong.
Relax a bit. Free advice from a non-practicing but still registered lawyer. That ruling is being taken to SCOTUS per DoJ. There are two routes, one ‘fast’ and one ‘slow’.
This is just more swamp critter stuff. If US gets a Paris like attack in the meanwhile, Trump gets an automatic second term and progressive judges will never recover.
4th appellate reasoning will very likely not stand up on either SCOTUS route, given current SCOTUS composition and legal interpretations. For example, in contracts what you say in negotiation is irrelevant; only what the signed final contract says is binding. Many other equivalent precedents to be applied to the written terms of his second executive order pursuant to an act of Congress. Porting Congessional intent notions to Exec Orders is beyond novel. Illegit.
Not to mention separation of powers arguments. The executive branch has national security powers delegated by Congress, in addition to its own. The judicial branch does not have the constitutional authority to nullify both other branches unless both the first and second branches constitutionally errored in some reasonably clear fashion.
This is why Gorsuch is a big deal. And why Robert’s Obamacare ruling was a really big deal. It was total future judo on legislative over reach, disguised in a Marbury v. Madison cloak. We will shortly reach the dividends of that decision in other venues than this controversy.
It is my understanding, Rud, that Roberts essentially said that Congress really meant the Individual Mandate was a tax, not a fee. A Justice’s ability to ignore plain language in making constitutional opinions scares me. That, and wise Latinas.
For those interested, here is the joint communique issued by the g7
http://www.g7italy.it/sites/default/files/documents/G7%20Taormina%20Leaders%27%20Communique_27052017_0.pdf
It covers a lot of ground but there is a small section on climate at 32 . The clause immediately after is perhaps more interesting though as it seems that the principle of assisting developing countries with climate change costs has been accepted by all present
Tonyb
Pretty sneaky, back-door “agreement”. Means nothing though.
The G7, NATO and the UN have long since outlived whatever usefulness, if any, they ever had.
US out of UN, NATO and G7!
Well, Chimp; we agree on a few things, at least.
Most multi-lateral global agreements have gone beyond their expiration dates. They are mostly used to hamstring American efforts to actually improve things worldwide. Obama’s perfidy will live on.
Turgid nonsense from the fancypants crowd. That nations actually pay people to sit around dreaming up such random associations of words is an indication of our mutual decadence.
When everything is “of concern, important, priority, etc.” then nothing, in fact, is. A pile of words to be ignored until the next opulent confab.
He may have declined to endorse it, but he says he’s going to make a final decision next week. I’m not too optimistic as I was 2 months ago….
It is imperative that he get us out of that deal.
It’s time to pull out of it once and for all and should be easily done, especially since the Senate never ratified it in the first place. Otherwise, it’ll drag out like the Kyoto Protocol and achieve nothing except pick the taxpayers’ pockets.
It’s all gesture politics anyway. All these countries agreed to was to blather a lot while business as usual while nature decides whether the temperature goes up or down. I’m sure they all wholeheartedly agreed to their Nato commitments at one time too.
It’s the crossing the Rubicon moment, the difference of being a great President or a failed one. Paris has to die right here right now or it’s a one term lock. No pandering or more research shilly shally.
The Lindzen UN exit on the climate protocol should follow very quickly. Where is the science team to back this?
He’s leaving a huge nebulous crater in the Greenshirt left that he’s going to defend on simple economic grounds without attacking the entire leftist subculture for variety of delusional reasons. If he does keep his word and hard exits Paris the social kiniption will be 10x the Russian meme to steal the election.
Making the climate leftist social base would assure victory in 20′ and beyond. There will be no reward for allowing funding of the academic left through climate proxy, they are the worst of the worst. It’s total war from here on out, it’s a delusion to think otherwise.
He’ll slow walk the subside cuts but the bubble is there and you bet who’s going to get blamed for popping it. A leader has to educate the general population as to what climate fraud was always about. About 100 trillion of anticipated commerce, phony as it may have been conceived, will now be discounted out of expectations. Keynesian deflation almost assured for effected climate players. How do you rationalize the Tesla climate change $7500 per car subside and denounce Paris next week?
It’s a big move, half measures lead to disaster. A million fewer Greenshirt employed in academia and industry is a social plus long term but you better have plan to transition. You better know your story. Restoring critical thinking, a sound science method that requires empirical support are immeasurable benefits as well. Again this is hard turf to take from the condescending global elite that make all of their marketing claims based on being “smarter”.
Even if Paris is canned next week, a hard fight seems inevitable for decades more. The political investment in climate authority is huge. The skeptic community is diffused and frankly weak as a political force.
The study linking Paris climate policy drag to the death of millions of the world poor would a handy item about now. There’ll be talk of war crime trials if the hard exit is announced next week. Terrorist attacks will be inspired by cult members. This where the skeptic administration needs to prepare for and they don’t look ready to me. Neither does the imagined skeptic base found here.
WaPo spin: (headline newly on google news) Trump FAILS to commit to Paris at G7. Breitbart headline this post lead: Trump declines to commit to Paris at G7. We are truely at verbal war here, progressives versus Deplorables.Trump says he will decide next week. Expect a full bombardment of chaff and futz both before and after.
I get the feeling he is going to use the Paris agreement as a bargaining chip. He wants for money from Europe in NATO and he wants more help on terrorism and he wants better trade deals. Look for the deal.
Hope not. Paris is a bad deal in any deal. The other Nato nations made written commitments they did not live up to. Trump used the name a shame Paris mechanism to ‘stimulate’ them. They didn’t like that truth exposure. So, lets gets out of Paris which uses the same mechanism to force America down.
Sad but possible.
It’s exactly that appeasement that pushes the climate scheme down the road all the time. It didn’t even matter the IPCC failed to make an empirical proof, they simply changed the science standard along the way and kept moving the agenda forward.
AGW activism might stall a few years but the basic political model will remain intact even if Paris is withdrawn from. I don’t see the plan to eradicate the science authority system.
This is why Trump needs skeptics running NOAA and NASA and he needs to do it ASAP.
Agreed.
If the EU had not spent the trillion Euros or so on climate they would be the dominant military force in the world today.
Considering that Merkel’s insistence on forcing wind and solar power as sources for electricity down the throats of the German people, whether they want it or not, and that it has failed noticeably and is THREE TIMES AS EXPENSIVE AS OTHER SOURCES, if Mr. Trump wants to thumb his nose at those idiots, let him.
The whole thing is a scam foisted on people who can’t even afford to pay for it. As a result, they have no electricity, period, even in the winter when they need it the most.
And does Angela Merkel do anything about that? Of course not. It’s not her problem, even thought she created it.
Aint it just wunnaful?