NRO – We’ll never have Paris; NY SUN: Constitutional Climate; CHAMBERS – He’ll withdraw; McCARTHY – Judicial Imperialism; SPERRY – BO hacked the election; WSJ – Samantha revealed.
RECOMMENDED: Zero Hedge; Hannity on Health Care.
“Climate change presents the world with genuine risks, and there is of course room for international action in addressing them. But the Paris Agreement takes the wrong approach, committing the United States to a high-cost/low-return program that secures neither our national interests nor global environmental interests. It is part of the Obama administration’s legacy of putting sentiment over substance, and the United States is better off without it.”
NRO: “We’ll Never Have Paris”
This nation has and always has had its opportunists,many of them not named “Clinton,” opportunists who bet their wallets on future deals. Elon Musk, for example, makes spacecraft and Teslas – taking a $15,000 loss on each car. Likewise for folks who build windmills. There is a generation of such people who saw the “environment” as a singular opportunity to make more money from government contracts supporting a religion that is irresistible even though bogus. Trump is to open a coal mine next week and most of us think of Bogart and Bergman when we think of Paris.
“President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. The United States never should have been in it in the first place, and it’s not even entirely clear that it ever was. In choosing American interests over Davos pieties — in the face of resistance from some within his own administration — the president here has made good on his promise to put America first.
“The Paris Agreement is a treaty in all but name: The European signatories put it through their usual treaty-ratification protocols, but the United States did not. President Obama went to great lengths to pretend that the treaty was something other than a treaty because he did not wish to submit it for ratification by the Senate, which was almost sure to reject it — as, indeed, the Senate would likely reject it today. In a government of laws, process matters.
“Substance matters, too, and here the Paris Agreement is deficient.
“Even if one accepts, for the sake of argument, the alarmist interpretation of climate-change data, the Paris Agreement is unlikely to produce the desired result — and may not produce any result at all. Two countries that are responsible for a large share of greenhouse-gas emissions — China and India, the world largest and fourth-largest carbon dioxide emitters, respectively — have made only modest commitments under the agreement, which puts most of the onus on the more developed nations of North America and Western Europe. Both would continue to emit more carbon dioxide through at least 2030, and both have chosen, as their major commitment, not reductions in total emissions but reductions in “carbon intensity” — meaning emissions per unit of GDP. But these improvements are likely to happen anyway, irrespective of treaties or public policy, due to ordinary economic changes, such as the growth of the low-impact services sector relative to heavy industry, the aging-out of high-emissions vehicles, and the replacement of antiquated infrastructure. . .”
NY Sun: “The Constitutional Climate”
“The best part of President Trump’s remarks on America’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord came in respect of sovereignty. This was marked toward the end, when the President turned to what he called the “serious legal and constitutional issues.” Say what you will about the climate, the president is not sworn to it.
“No, the president is sworn to the Constitution. It clearly bothers Mr. Trump, as it does us, that, as he put it, “Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives.” He called our withdrawal from the agreement ”a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.”
“This kind of talk is music to our ears —and not just ours, we’ll warrant. ‘Our Constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it,’ Mr. Trump vowed. ‘And I will.’ He then marked that the agreement could ‘pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly.’
“‘It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal. The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time.’
“This is the talk of a proper president. . .”
Francesca Chambers, UK Daily Mail: “’You can take it to the bank he’s going to withdraw’: Climate insider says Trump WILL pull out of Paris within hours (but others aren’t so sure)”
- White House insiders says Donald Trump will pull United States out of Paris climate agreement that Barack Obama signed the US onto
- Just two countries – Syria and Nicaragua – are out of the deal and countries still to ratify it include Russia, Iran and North Korea
- Trump had faced an intense global lobbying effort from the Pope and European leaders as well as pressure from his daughter Ivanka but went against it
- Ivanka Trump had advised her father against an exit from the accord that commits participants to drastically reducing greenhouse gases
- United Nations secretary-general led worldwide calls for Trump to change his mind and stay in the deal
- Elon Musk, the billionaire Tesla founder, said he would quit advising Trump if he really did pull out of deal
- Scientists claim that without the deal to cut greenhouse emissions, global average temperatures will rise by more than 2C – 3.6F – this century
- Anti-treaty lobbyists say it will cost American jobs and Trump himself has previously called scientists theory of man-made global warming a ‘hoax’
- Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, Gap, Mars, Tiffany & Co. and other big businesses published an open letter asking Trump to stay in.
Andrew McCarthy, NRO: “How Sharia Supremacism and Judicial Imperialism Threaten National Security”
“The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling against President Trump’s so-called travel ban empowers both radical Islam and judicial imperialism. The combination portends lasting damage to the United States.
“To rehash, the executive order (EO) proclaimed temporary restrictions (the main one, for 90 days) on travel to the United States by the nationals of six countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Those countries, along with Iraq (cited in Trump’s original executive order, but not the revised EO at issue), had previously been singled out by Congress and President Obama — not because they are Muslim-majority countries, but because a) the presence or promotion of terrorism in their territories makes their nationals suspect and b) their anti-Americanism and/or dysfunctional governments render it impossible to conduct background checks on visa applicants.
“This Fourth Circuit’s en banc review of prior invalidations of the EO by “progressive” activists masquerading as jurists produced 205 pages of opinions. The outcome was about as uncertain as Secretariat at Belmont, with ten of the tribunal’s 13 judges joining Chief Judge Roger Gregory’s majority ruling to one degree or another.
“Three judges filed compelling dissents that will prove quite useful when, as Trump promises, the case proceeds to the Supreme Court. The continuation of the litigation is an unfortunate outcome, even if conservatives and other rule-of-law types, buoyed by Justice Neil Gorsuch’s appointment, may be right that the EO has a better shot in the High Court.
“That’s because the EO doesn’t matter. You may not have noticed, but sharia supremacism has already won, regardless of what the Supreme Court does.
“See, the EO was never an end in and of itself. It is a means — a fatally flawed one — to a vital end. That end is a vetting system that enables our security services to distinguish pro-Western Muslims from sharia supremacists. That’s the goal. The EO was conceived as a temporary pause while the vetting system took shape.
“From a security perspective, though, the EO was utterly ineffective: applicable to a negligible slice of the global anti-American threat. More significantly, as a strategy, starting with the EO rather than getting to vetting has been a catastrophe.
“As we have previously observed, in order to install the vetting system we need, the challenge of Islam must be confronted head-on and without apology. That is unavoidable. You can’t flinch. . .”
Paul Sperry, NY Post: “How Team Obama tried to hack the election”
“New revelations have surfaced that the Obama administration abused intelligence during the election by launching a massive domestic-spy campaign that included snooping on Trump officials.
“The irony is mind-boggling: Targeting political opposition is long a technique of police states like Russia, which Team Obama has loudly condemned for allegedly using its own intelligence agencies to hack into our election.
“The revelations, as well as testimony this week from former Obama intel officials, show the extent to which the Obama administration politicized and weaponized intelligence against Americans.
“Thanks to Circa News, we now know the National Security Agency under President Barack Obama routinely violated privacy protections while snooping through foreign intercepts involving US citizens — and failed to disclose the breaches, prompting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a month before the election to rebuke administration officials.
“The story concerns what’s known as “upstream” data collection under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, under which the NSA looks at the content of electronic communication. Upstream refers to intel scooped up about third parties: Person A sends Person B an e-mail mentioning Person C. Though Person C isn’t a party to the e-mail, his information will be scooped up and potentially used by the NSA.
“Further, the number of NSA data searches about Americans mushroomed after Obama loosened rules for protecting such identities from government officials and thus the reporters they talk to.
“The FISA court called it a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue” that NSA analysts — in violation of a 2011 rule change prohibiting officials from searching Americans’ information without a warrant — “had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”
“A number of those searches were made from the White House, and included private citizens working for the Trump campaign, some of whose identities were leaked to the media. The revelations earned a stern rebuke from the ACLU and from civil-liberties champion Sen. Rand Paul. . .”
WSJ: “Samantha Power Unmasked”
“Why would a diplomat need to know the names of Trump officials?
“The new subpoenas seek details of all unmasking requests in 2016 by three people: former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. Democrats claim Ms. Rice needed to unmask names to do her job, though this is questionable given that she wasn’t running counterintelligence investigations. They have a better claim with Mr. Brennan.
“But Ms. Power’s job was diplomacy. Unmaskings are supposed to be rare, and if the mere ambassador to the U.N. could demand them, what privacy protection was the Obama White House really offering U.S. citizens? The House subpoenas should provide fascinating details about how often Ms. Power and her mates requested unmaskings, on which Trump officials, and with what justification. The public deserves to know given that unmasked details have been leaked to the press in violation of the law and privacy.
“Meantime, we learned from Circa News last week of a declassified document from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which excoriated the National Security Agency for an ‘institutional lack of candor.’ The court explained that Obama officials had often violated U.S. privacy protections while looking at foreign intelligence but did not disclose these incidents until the waning days of Mr. Obama’s tenure. . .”
Also: Andrew McCarthy, NRO: “What the House Subpoenas of Rice, Brennan, and Power in the ‘Unmasking’ Probe Mean”
“It’s not all about Russia.
“The House Intelligence Committee has reportedly issued seven subpoenas in connection with its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and of the Obama administration’s potentially illegal use of the government’s foreign-intelligence-collection power for the purpose of monitoring Americans — in particular, Americans connected to the Trump campaign and transition.
“The news was broken Wednesday afternoon by the Wall Street Journal.
“The most intriguing detail of the subpoenas is the demand for any information related to requests for unmasking by Samantha Power, President Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations.
“‘Unmasking’ is the revealing in intelligence reports of the identities of Americans whose communications (or information about whom) have been “incidentally” intercepted during foreign-intelligence-collection operations.
“Of course, the fact that a subpoena demanding information is issued does not necessarily mean the information exists. Nevertheless, the issuance of a subpoena implies that the issuer has a good-faith basis to believe it does. On that score, it has previously been reported that the committee’s chairman, Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), has reviewed intelligence reporting and detected instances of unmasking.
“Were there to be information indicating that Ms. Power was involved in unmasking American identities in intelligence reports, significant questions would be raised. As ambassador to the U.N., Power, a long-time Obama adviser, held a diplomatic position. She was not an intelligence analyst. It is not immediately clear why the U.N. ambassador would be involved in the disclosure of American identities in intelligence reports — after the agencies that collected and analyzed the intelligence had decided such identities should be masked.
“The Journal report further indicates that committee subpoenas demand any information related to unmasking requests by Susan Rice and John Brennan. Ms. Rice was President Obama’s national-security adviser (a White House staff position), and, as we’ve noted, previous reporting has tied her to unmasking activities. Brennan was Obama’s director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA is in the business of gathering and analyzing foreign intelligence outside the United States. In that capacity, the CIA routinely makes judgments about whether identities of Americans should be unmasked.
“The House Intelligence Committee is investigating both a) Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, an inquiry that entails thus far unsubstantiated suspicions of Trump-campaign collusion, and b) the use of intelligence authorities to investigate the Trump campaign, an inquiry that focuses on whether national-security powers (such as those codified in FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) were used pretextually, for the real purpose of conducting political spying. “The Senate Intelligence Committee is also conducting an investigation, but that inquiry appears more single-mindedly directed at Russia’s meddling in the campaign. . .”
Mark Levin – June 1, 2017
“On Thursday’s Mark Levin show, The President’s speech on the Paris climate accord was magnificent, simple and directed straight at the American people, who now understand the devastating effect the Paris agreement would have had on their livelihoods. The real goal of progressives supporting the Paris accords was not to reverse climate change. It was to use the power of government to redistribute wealth. Climate change is not what really is going on here. For 100 years or more there has been a movement in this country to destroy the Republic and the civil society. They call themselves progressives. They are iron fisted tyrants in many respects and they are really regressive. The left wrap themselves in populist language but there model is authoritarianism and threats. The environmental movement is part of an ideological movement, just like healthcare.
“After that, why is it so controversial to move the U.S. embassy to the eternal capital of the Jews, Jerusalem? Unfortunately, on Thursday, Trump betrayed those who believed that he would move the embassy to Jerusalem by signing a waver delaying the move. The Palestinians only have recent and modern ties to Jerusalem unlike the Jewish people who have had ties to it for over a couple thousand years. The President has broken his promise.
“Finally, Tom Coburn calls in to talk about his new book, “Smashing the DC Monopoly” and Article V. There is a loss of liberty, by individuals, their families and their states. Article V is the only way that something of consequence can be done to save our country.”
Strongly Recommended: Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge. Email available!
Health Care – Hannity: Josh Umber Sites
The map below contains a listing of public addresses and website links to 607 DPC practice locations in 47 states + DC (we still have not located any DPC practices in North Dakota, South Dakota, or Iowa,). Website readers should note that these practices met our three part definition of DPC, although they may not always self-describe as DPC. Both “Pure” DPC practices and DPC hybrids are included in the mapper, and they are now color coded! I’m happy to report that over 70% of the practices in the mapper are known to be pure.
Pure = Green Icon
Unknown = Yellow Icon
Hybrid = Red Icon