Category Archives: United Nations

UN wants $240/gallon gas tax to combat global warming

On October 7, 2018, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the final draft of a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C, which is intended to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit this December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the goal of the Paris accord.

According to the Daily Caller, Oct. 8, 2018, the IPCC Special Report claims that to keep future global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to 45% of 2010 levels by 2030, that is, in less than 12 years; and 100% reduction by 2050.

To achieve those goals, the world would have to largely abandon its use of coal for electricity, and use more solar and wind power. The report says the costs of such a transition would be high, and options could include a carbon tax as high as $27,000 per ton by 2100.

The IPCC Special Report is collectively authored by 26 climate scientists from 16 countries, including two from the United States (Drew Shindell and William Solecki). According to the report:

4.1 There is very high likelihood that under current emission trajectories and current national pledges the Earth will warm globally more than 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, causing associated risks. The nationally determined contributions submitted under the Paris Agreement will result, in aggregate, in global greenhouse emissions in 2030 which are higher than those in scenarios compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C by 2100. More ambitious pledges would imply higher mitigation costs in the short-term, albeit offset by a variety of co-benefits, but would lower both mitigation and adaptation costs in the long-term….
4.4 Limiting global warming of 1.5°C implies the need for transformational adaptation and mitigation, behaviour change, and multi-level governance….
A broad portfolio of different mitigation policy options, including carbon pricing mechanisms and regulation, would be necessary in 1.5°C pathways to achieve the most cost-effective emissions reductions…. Reduction in energy demand can also be achieved through behaviour change….
Policy instruments, both price and non-price, are needed to accelerate the deployment of carbon-neutral technologies. Evidence and theory suggests that some form of carbon pricing can be necessary.

In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100.

Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller translates for us what a carbon tax of $27,000 per ton by the year 2100 means:

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

The Democrat Party had called for a price on carbon dioxide in their 2016 party platform, but they haven’t made much effort on that front since the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.

This July, GOP lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposed to carbon taxes, despite a bill introduced by Rep. Carlos Curbelo to tax carbon dioxide at $23 a ton — nowhere near what the IPCC calls for.

See “Why President Trump got U.S. out of bad-for-America Paris Climate Accord“.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

UN’s dire warning: Terrifying climate change data means we’re doomed in 12 years!

The UN isn’t going to let Al Gore have the last word.

From NY Post: Earth is on track to face devastating consequences of climate change — extreme drought, food shortages and deadly flooding — unless there’s an “unprecedented” effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, a new United Nations report warns.

The planet’s surface has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) and could see a catastrophic 1.5 C (2.7 F) increase between 2030 and 2052, scientists say.

“This is concerning because we know there are so many more problems if we exceed 1.5 degrees C global warming, including more heat waves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and, for many parts of the world, worse droughts and rainfall extremes,” Andrew King, a climate science academic at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement to CNN.

The stunning statistics were released Monday in a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned that we must make “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” in order to save our planet.

Scientists with the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC said that in order to have even a 50-50 chance of staying under the 1.5-degree cap, the world must become “carbon neutral” by 2050. Any additional carbon dioxide emissions would require removing the harmful gas from the air.

If nothing is done, Earth can expect temperatures to rise by 3 degrees Celsius, more frequent or extreme droughts, an increase in deadly hurricanes and as much as 90 percent of coral reefs dying off — including the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, according to the report.

Countries in the Southern Hemisphere would see the most drastic effects.

“The next few years are probably the most important in human history,” IPCC co-chair Debra Roberts, head of the Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department in South Africa, told Agence France-Presse.

Efforts to curb climate change must also extend beyond the 2015 Paris Agreement reached among 197 countries — which President Trump withdrew the US from in June 2017.

“The window on keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees C is closing rapidly and the current emissions pledges made by signatories to the Paris Agreement do not add up to us achieving that goal,” said King.

Staying within the 1.5 degrees C target, instead of 2 degrees C, would result in the global sea level rising 3.9 inches less by 2100, reducing flooding. It would also cut down on species loss and extinction and reduce the impact on various ecosystems.

“There were doubts if we would be able to differentiate impacts set at 1.5 C and that came so clearly. Even the scientists were surprised to see how much science was already there and how much they could really differentiate and how great are the benefits of limiting global warming at 1.5 compared to 2,” Thelma Krug, vice chair of the IPCC, told Reuters. “And now more than ever we know that every bit of warming matters.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

One-world-government Walter Cronkite: ‘I’m glad to sit at the right hand of Satan’

The late CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite with the avuncular demeanor was called “the most trusted man in America”. He retired from anchoring the CBS Evening News in March 1981, succeeded by Dan “fake news” Rather.

Cronkite was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

On October 19, 1999, Cronkite accepted the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the World Federalists Association at a ceremony at the United Nations in what WND reported as a “total media blackout”.

In his speech, Cronkite declared his support and allegiance to a one-world government. He blamed the refusal of the U.S. Congress to ratify one-world-government treaties on “a handful” of obdurate senators who “pander” to the Christian Coalition and the “religious right wing”.

Identifying Pat Robertson as the leader of the Christian Coalition, Cronkite quoted Robertson, that “any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the Devil.” Cronkite then mocked Robertson by declaring, “I’m glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan.”

Below are two videos of Cronkite’s remarks, followed by my transcription of his words.

Introduced by a speaker declaring that a one “world government is the structure necessary for global justice,” Cronkite said:

I’m in a position to speak my mind and, by god, I’m going to do it. (Audience laugh uproariously)

First, we Americans are going to have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That’s going to be for many a bitter pill.

Today, we must develop federal structures on a global level to deal with world problems. We need a system of enforceable world law, a democratic federal world government. Most important, we should sign and ratify the treaty for a permanent international criminal court. That is now at the core of the world federalist movement’s drive. That court will enable the world to hold individuals accountable for their crimes against humanity.

And the third point: Just consider if you will, after 55 years, the possibility of a more representative and democratic system of decision-making at the UN. This should include both revision of the veto in the Security Council and adoption of a weighted voting system in the General Assembly.

Some of you may ask, although I think most of you know the answer, why the Senate is not ratifying these important treaties, and why the Congress is not even paying UN dues, even as with the American rejection, so many years now, the League of Nations after World War I.

Our failure to live up to our obligations to the United Nations is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation’s conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing. Their leader, Pat Robertson, has written in a book a few years ago that we should have a world government but only when the Messiah arrives. (Derisive laughs from the audience.) He (Robertson) wrote, “Any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the devil.”

Well, join me. I’m glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan. (Audience applause)

Curiously, the version of Cronkite’s 1999 speech on the website of Renew America, an organization founded by Alan Keyes, leaves out Cronkite’s “right hand of Satan” declaration.

From LifeSiteNews:

[U]p until his death Cronkite served as honorary chair of the Interfaith Alliance, an organization dedicated to countering the influence of conservative Christianity on federal politics.  In 2007, the Alliance initiated a campaign to force Christianity out of the public sphere by promoting policies that would silence the Christian voice…[and the banning of] faith-based schools….

Part and parcel with Cronkite’s campaign against religion in public life was his outspoken vocal support of abortion and same-sex marriage.

According to Kurt Nimmo of InfoWars, Walter Cronkite was part of the Deep State:

Cronkite was a former intelligence officer who was lured away from his UPI Moscow desk by the CIA Operation Mockingbird’s Phil Graham…. [T]he corporate media, at least at the level Walter Cronkite occupied, is rife with spooks, government agents, and disinfo operatives. The CIA has “important assets” inside every major news publication in the country, a fact established by numerous FOIA documents. A rare glimpse was also provided by Frank Church’s committee in the mid-70s.

Walter Cronkite died on July 17, 2009, ten years after his “I’m glad to sit at the right hand of Satan” speech. May he, like Saul Alinsky and Fidel Castro, be granted his wish.

H/t FOTM‘s greenworxx

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Thomas the Train re-launches with “inclusive” and “gender-balanced” friends

Thomas the Train…where’s his gay friend?

Is it really that inclusive if there’s no homosexual or transgender train?

From Daily Mail: Children’s programme Thomas And Friends is to introduce an ‘inclusive’ gender-balanced, multicultural set of characters as part of a revamp.

The new series of the animated show about Thomas the Tank Engine and his Steam Team will see the beloved locomotive leave his home in Sodor to travel the world for the first time. He will meet other trains including Ashima from India, Yong Bao from China and Shane from Australia.

Now called Thomas And Friends: Big World! Big Adventures!, the brand’s biggest relaunch in its 73-year history will aim to appeal to a wider global audience.

There will also be a new theme tune for the show, a faster-paced format, increased humour and music, fantasy elements and dream sequences.

For the first time in the series’ history, Thomas will discover new countries and cultures by travelling to China, India and Australia.

The Steam Team, the core group of trains on the fictional island of Sodor, will now comprise three male and three female characters. Long-running favourites Percy, Gordon, James and Emily will be joined by additions Nia and Rebecca, along with Thomas.

Other new female characters, described by show bosses as ‘strong girl characters’, include Isla, an Australian flying doctor plane, Noor Jehan, a royal express engine from India, Hong-Mei, a number one blue tank engine from China, and female railway controller Charubala, from India.

Another first for the show will see Thomas talk directly to the audience to narrate it himself.

Ian McCue, senior producer at Thomas And Friends, said: ‘The show has undergone an evolution to remain relevant for the next generation of parents and children by opening up the world of Thomas And Friends so children can discover the world around them while being entertained.

The changes and new additions of characters and geographies will make the show more entertaining, inclusive and global – whilst ensuring all the favourite characters and storylines that fans around the world love remain at the heart of the action.’

Thomas the Tank Engine was created more than 70 years ago by Reverend Wilbert Awdry as part of his Railway Series of books, which have become a global brand including TV programmes, films, toys and live attractions.

Awdry’s granddaughter, Claire Chambers, welcomed the changes to the franchise, saying she thinks he would be ‘very happy’ with them. ‘If the gender-balanced Steam Team encourages more girls to maintain an interest then that can only be a good thing,’ she said.

The programme’s redevelopment included a collaboration with the UN Department of Public Information’s Creative Community Outreach Initiative to develop content inspired by the Sustainable Development Goals appropriate for a pre-school audience while in keeping with the Thomas And Friends brand.

Thomas And Friends will air daily from September 3 at 7am on Channel 5’s Milkshake.

DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Trump has globalists in a panic: U2’s Bono says existence of UN, EU & NATO are threatened

If we go by international puppeteer Jacob Rothschild, the globalists’ dream of a one-world order would have been realized this year. (See “30 years ago, Jacob Rothschild predicted a global currency by 2018“)

But “deplorable” Americans threw a wrench into their scheme by electing Donald Trump as President in 2016, and President Trump’s standing up for America’s national interests now has globalists in a panic.

Now, a prominent globalist activist, Irish rock star and U2 lead vocalist Bono (real name Paul Hewson), is sounding the alarm that the very existence of international bodies such as the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and World Trade Organization (WTO) is in peril.

Edith Lederer reports for the Associated Press that during an event on July 2, 2018, to launch Ireland’s candidacy for a seat on the UN’s powerful Security Council, Bono delivered a “sobering” speech to several hundred U.N. diplomats and staff, warning that the United Nations and other international institutions including the European Union and NATO are under threat, and urged nations to work together to ensure their continued existence.

While Bono didn’t name any countries responsible for threatening global institutions during these “troubled times,” his words appeared clearly aimed at U.S. President Donald Trump, who has criticized the EU and NATO. Bono cited Trump’s pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, and taking aim at the World Trade Organization with new U.S. tariffs.

You should know that this is the same Bono, 58, who is widely praised and lauded and given awards as a philanthropist, but whose anti-poverty ONE foundation gave only 1.2% of its funds to charity.

The Daily Mail reports on Sept. 23, 2010, that the non-profit ONE organization, co-founded by spokesman Bono in 2004, received almost £9.6 million ($12.58 million) in donations in 2008 but handed out only 1.2% of the donations (£118,000 or $154,620) to charity causes.

Instead, ONE spent more than 51% of it donations (£5.1 million or $6.68 million) on salaries to its staff of 120. ONE also funded high-profile, celebrity-supported events “to fight poverty in Africa and AIDS worldwide”. ONE said it took no money from the public and that most of its funding came from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Writing in the New York Post, Paula Froelich calls Bono a hypocrite:

Over the years, it has often been shown that what Bono says and what he does are two different things. In 2007, U2 moved part of its multi-million dollar song catalogue from Ireland to Amsterdam just as their homeland ended a tax exemption on music royalties, to take advantage of the Netherlands’ low to non-existent tax rates for musicians.

Fine — except in the ensuing years Bono (and his charity One) earned kudos for insisting countries, corporations and people pay taxes in pursuit of a fairer society. In 2011, Bono, 57, who, according to CNN has an estimated net worth of $590 million, further angered his countrymen when he espoused the values of Ireland’s 12.5 percent corporate tax breaks. He went on the record to claim that these breaks for multi-billion dollar companies had brought Ireland the “only prosperity we’ve ever known.” He had a point, but as the locals noted, Bono wasn’t even giving the country a meager 12.5 percent any longer.

In defending his tax position, Bono told Sky News that just because he had campaigned for a fairer society did not mean he had to be “stupid” in business.

Then, in 2015, Bono’s One Campaign repeatedly called for more transparency on the ownership of “shell companies” and offshore trusts, decrying the effect of lost tax revenues on developing economies. A spokesperson for One said, “Anonymous shell companies and trusts [are] often being used to siphon much-needed funds out of developed and developing countries alike,” and claimed these companies cost the Third World the staggering sum of “a trillion dollars each year.”

So, last week, when it was revealed in a trove of leaked documents that Bono himself was a partner in one of these shady companies, the hypocrisy stank.

The so-called “Paradise Papers,” which belonged to an offshore tax haven, showed that Bono had formed a company with two Irish businessmen based in the low-tax island of Malta and bought part of a shopping mall in Lithuania, thus eluding the international taxmen….

Meanwhile, Bono repeatedly falls back on the work of One and his messianic campaign to save Africa as his failsafe excuse for any perceived bad behavior…. [But a] person who worked closely with One for years and has intimate knowledge of the organization told me that the charity is “strictly an advocacy group which tries to influence or shame African governments into behaving” and that not one dollar donated to One goes to real “boots on the ground” help….

All the while, he [Bono] is rewarded by a sycophantic media honoring his every utterance with a magazine cover or an accolade.

God bless our President Donald John Trump!

Please keep him in your prayers.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

UN admits 'refugees' are 'replacement migration' for Europe and other low-fertility countries

Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:32:44 +0000

eowyn2

For those of us who’ve long suspected there’s a hidden agenda behind the invasion of “refugees” and “migrants” in Europe, here’s the smoking gun.

In 2000, the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs issued a report, Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?, which proposes “replacement migration” for countries with an aging and declining population.

Below is the UN’s press release on the report, dated March 17, 2000 — that’s how long ago the “refugee” and “migrant” plan was hatched.

Press Release
DEV/2234
POP/735

NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION

NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.

Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

Major findings of this report include:

— In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

— Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.

Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.

— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.

— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working-age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

— Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

— The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

— In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

— The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.

Note that, unlike Europe and other developed countries, the United States is a lone exception. Instead of population decline and ageing, our population is projected to increase by a quarter in the next 50 years.

That means America does not need to open our doors to immigrants, migrants and refugees. In fact, the UN report concludes that we only need to bring in 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

The U.S. population in 2018 is 327.16 million. That means that, at most, we need to bring in less than half a million (425,000) migrants a year — if even that.

See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

President Trump pulls U.S. out of UN global pact on migration

This surely will drive even more “Progressives” to scream at the sky.

AFP reports that in September 2016, the 193 members of the UN General Assembly — including the U.S. as determined by the Obama administration — unanimously adopted a non-binding political declaration called the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which pledged to uphold the rights of refugees, help them resettle and ensure they have access to education and jobs.
On December 2, 2017, the Trump administration announced in a statement that the U.S. Mission to the United Nations had informed the UN Secretary-General that the United States is ending its participation in the Global Compact on Migration because the compact is “inconsistent” with U.S. policies:

“The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with US immigration and refugee policies and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles. As a result, President (Donald) Trump determined that the United States would end its participation in the Compact process that aims to reach international consensus at the UN in 2018.”

Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said that the United States would continue its “generosity” in supporting migrants and refugees around the world, but that “our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone.” Henceforth, the United States “will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with US sovereignty.”

To no one’s surprise, the U.S. withdrawal from the migration compact elicited criticisms and condemnation:

  • Amnesty International slammed it as a “devastating abdication of responsibility in the world’s largest refugee crisis.”
  • UN General Assembly president Miroslav Lajcak of Slovakia said “migration is a global phenomenon that demands a global response and that multilateralism remains the best way to address global challenges.”
  • UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ spokesman, Farhan Aziz Haq, said: “We regret the decision but there is still plenty of time for US re-engagement. This should not disrupt the clear, unanimous outcome of the New York Declaration for such a global compact.”

Under President Trump’s “America First” policies, the United States has already withdrawn from several global commitments made by the Obama administration, including the Paris climate deal and UNESCO.

Almost all of the readers’ comments about the AFP news report are enthusiastically supportive of President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the UN migrant compact. Here’s a sample:

“Keep up the good job Mr. Trump!”
“SHIP THE INVADING ARMY HOME!!!”
“Thank you president Trump”
“Thank God President Trump didn’t get us involved in this mess.”


H/t Mike F.
See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Texas university newspaper publishes anti-white "Your DNA is an Abomination" column

white is over bethany tisdel photo

Photo courtesy of Bethany Tisdel


From Fox News: A Texas college’s student newspaper is apologizing after coming under fire for running an opinion column called “Your DNA is an abomination” that accuses white people of being oppressors who “shouldn’t exist.”
The apology from Texas State’s University Star came just hours after the column was printed in the paper’s Tuesday edition, sparking a backlash.
“Whiteness will be over because we want it to be,” the article reads, according to a photograph sent to Fox News by multiple viewers. “And when it dies, there will be “millions of cultural zombies aimlessly wandering across a vastly changed landscape.”
In addition to stating “white death will mean liberation for all,” the columnist also says whiteness is “a construct used to perpetuate a system of racist power” and white people are “an aberration.”
“Until then, remember this: I hate you because you shouldn’t exist,” the column adds. “You are both the dominant apparatus on the planet and the void in which all other cultures, upon meeting you, die.”
The column was written by Texas State University senior Rudy Martinez, a philosophy major who said in a past article he was one of the more than 200 people who was arrested on Jan. 20 protesting “the inauguration of proto-fascist Donald Trump.”
The University Star’s Editor-in-Chief, Denise Cervantes, said in a statement issued late Tuesday the column received “widespread criticism from readers.”
“The University Star’s opinion pages are a forum for students to express and debate ideas,” she said. “While our publication does not endorse every opinion put forth by student columnists or guest contributors, as the editor I take responsibility for what is printed on our pages.”
Cervantes said the original intent of the column was to provide a commentary on the idea of race and racial identities.
“We acknowledge that the column could have been clearer in its message and that it has caused hurt within our campus community,” she said. “We apologize and hope that we can move forward to a place of productive dialogue on ways to bring our community together.”
Andrew Homann, a former Texas State student body president and chief of staff at the Texas Federation of College Republicans, was among the leading critics of the column.
“Just when you think the opinion’s columns in the University Star couldn’t get any worse, they publish this masterpiece and exceed my expectations,” he wrote on a Facebook post Tuesday. “No one is going to take this paper seriously if the editorial board continues to allow baseless garbage to be published week in and week out.”
Read the rest of the story here.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Why President Trump got U.S. out of bad-for-America Paris Climate Accord

Fri, 02 Jun 2017 13:42:43 +0000

eowyn2

Yesterday, after briefly describing America’s economic progress since his inauguration, President Trump announced that the United States is out of the 2015 Paris Climate (Change) Accord.

He said (beg. at the 3:13 mark of video below):

“I am fighting every day for the great people of this country. Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord … but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers…we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine….

Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.

These are the reasons given by President Trump for pulling the U.S. out of the Accord (read his full speech here). Simply put the Paris Climate Accord is:

  1. Bad for America: In Trump’s words, the agreement “disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — whom I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production”. According to the National Economic Research Associates, compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord could cost America:
    1. 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, including 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs.
    2. By 2040, $3 trillion in lost GDP, 6.5 million industrial jobs, $7,000 less income (or worse) for U.S. households, and cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12%; cement down 23%; iron and steel down 38%; coal down 86%; natural gas down 31%.
  2. Unfair, in that the Accord punishes the U.S. but does nothing about the world’s leading polluters:
    1. China will be able to increase their emissions by 13 years. India makes its participation “contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.”
    2. U.S. must get rid of our coal plants, but not Europe, China, or India. In India’s case, its coal production will be allowed to double by 2020. “In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries.”
  3. A massive redistribution of U.S. wealth to other countries.
  4. Ineffective: “Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree…Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100…. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would…totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.”

In other words, the Paris Climate Accord is destructive of America’s economy, unfair, a socialist wealth redistribution in disguise, and ineffectual in actually lowering global temperature. So why would America, unless we were really stupid and self-destructive, want to be a part of this Accord?

And if we are judged by the enemies we have, then Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. from the Paris agreement is a wise one, as the heads of anti-America Hollyweirdos and other globalists explode at the news. See “President Trump nixes Paris Climate Agreement; Hollyweird libtards’ & globalists’ heads explode“.

See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

UN warned Trump that ObamaCare repeal could violate international law

United Nations
From Fox News: The United Nations warned the Trump administration earlier this year that repealing ObamaCare without providing an adequate replacement would be a violation of multiple international laws, according to a new report.
Though the Trump administration is likely to ignore the U.N. warning, The Washington Post reported the Office of the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights in Geneva sent an “urgent appeal” on Feb 2.
The Post reported that the confidential, five-page memo cautioned that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act would put the U.S. “at odds with its international obligations.”
The warning was sent to the State Department and reportedly said the U.N. expressed “serious concern” about the prospective loss of health coverage for 30 million people, that in turn could violate “the right to social security of the people in the United States.”
Congressional Republicans failed in March to pass an ObamaCare replacement bill. A new proposal is emerging on Capitol Hill, but it’s unclear when it might be considered and how sweeping it may be.
A spokesman for the U.N.’s human rights office in Geneva confirmed the authenticity of the letter, which was sent by Dainius Puras, a Lithuanian doctor who serves the U.N. as “Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”
Xabier Celaya, a spokesman for the U.N., said Puras cannot comment on his ObamaCare letter until it becomes public in June.
Though the report calls out the Trump administration, there’s very little the U.N. can actually do. 
According to the report, the letter sent to the Trump administration also was supposed to be shared with the majority and minority leaders in both houses of Congress — but that did not happen.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer’s office said they never received the letter, as did officials in House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. The letter from Puras did make its way to the Department of Health and Human Services, where an unnamed employee supposedly leaked it.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0