Friday, June 16, 2017

An Open Letter to Congress


During the past forty-eight hours the horror that is now our country has reared its ugly head once again with the attempted assassination of members of the Republican Party at a baseball practice, and the wounding of several members, most notably Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise. What is interesting is the sudden unity that is being shown between the Democratic Party (with a few certain exceptions) and the Republican Party. The only problem with that is that within the next several hours that unity will cease and evaporate, and we will once again see a congress that is at each other’s throats with a vengeance. Already the Democrats are saying that it is the fault of the Republicans that this happened. Nancy Pelosi has already stated that it is the Republicans fault this happened. As an American Citizen I can only say that both Nancy and Maxine together have the brain power of a cumquat.

            As an ersatz representative of the American people, I feel it is necessary to state the following with the hope that one of you morons listens. I say morons simply because that is the way you are acting.

            If I were to have the opportunity to stand before Congress, this is what I would say to all of you.

            First of all, whether you like it or not Donald J. Trump was elected the President of the United States. We the people elected him. It wasn’t the Republican Party nor was it the Democratic Party; it actually was members of both parties. The reason is because the Democratic Candidate ran a shit campaign, and to be perfectly honest the American People aren’t so stupid that they couldn’t see what was going on. Trump may be inexperienced, but the fact is, he was telling the American People what we wanted and needed to hear, and as hard as he seems to be trying, all of you people seem to be intent on keeping him from doing what needs to be done.  STOP IT!

            The majority of us are fed up with your childish baloney. The Democrats need to start telling those who would resort to violence and the violations of the Constitution by rioting and protesting the First Amendment to stop. Discourse is an exchange of ideas that you can either agree with, or disagree with but generally you can learn from one another or not as it pleases you. You don’t even have to go and listen. But it is not an excuse to hurt people, burn and destroy businesses that in many cases took years to build up, or generally act like animals. This applies to you Republicans also.

            Despite the terrible wounding of Congressman Scalise, this could be the pivotal moment when both parties can look critically at the situation that has over taken our country, put aside party politics and work together to solve the problems that are plaguing our nation and its economy. Ignore who has the majority in the House or Senate and start working together. If a Democrat has a good idea then he should find a Republican with a similar idea and work with him or her to flesh it out and make it a bill that has enough merit that both would either vote for or against it.

            As an American Citizen, I can tell you that we are getting pretty pissed off with all of the time wasting you people are doing with trying to prove the President is a smuck and continually coming up with nothing. What is it? If you tell a lie long enough and hard enough it suddenly becomes the Truth?  You people have work to do, quit wasting time and our money. If this continues you are in danger of this nation’s government collapsing all together, leaving us open to attack from our enemies.

            The one thing that all of you have forgotten is the fact that it does not matter who voted you into office, it does not matter what state you are from, and it does not matter what party you belong too. Once you take the oath to serve and take your seat in either the senate or house, you not only represent the people who elected you, but you also represent every American Citizen in this Great Nation.  Stop playing games and get to work. We demand it!




Saturday, June 3, 2017

Climate Accord??


Over the past few days President Trump has been catching a great deal of heat from the leftist Liberals for pulling America out of the Paris Climate Accords. Problem is that these dorks have absolutely no idea as to what really happened, or why it happened. Instead they decided that they would attack Trump harder than ever in an effort to force him to either retract his decision or at the very least make his administration ineffectual.



As such I went and found out for myself what the Paris Accord really was, and I can say without doubt that Trump not only saved our economy, but our asses. If you don’t believe me then I invite you to read what the Paris Climate Accord truly is. I also point out that as you read this you’ll be struck by the fact that it seems like all of a sudden, the United Nations is speaking as the authority for those countries that signed the agreement. It wouldn’t be the first time that Obama has tried to sign away American Sovereignty, and it’s beginning to look like those who are remaining a part of the agreement are doing the same. Trump’s not stupid, and whether you believe it or not he may have just saved America.



The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through:[8]

"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."

Countries furthermore aim to reach "global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible". The agreement has been described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel divestment.[9][10]

The Paris deal is the world's first comprehensive climate agreement.[11]

Nationally determined contributions and their limits





Global carbon dioxide emissions by country (US EPA)

The contributions that each individual country should make in order to achieve the worldwide goal are determined by all countries individually and called "nationally determined contributions" (NDCs).[5] Article 3 requires them to be "ambitious", "represent a progression over time" and set "with the view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement". The contributions should be reported every five years and are to be registered by the UNFCCC Secretariat.[12] Each further ambition should be more ambitious than the previous one, known as the principle of 'progression'.[13] Countries can cooperate and pool their nationally determined contributions. The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions pledged during the 2015 Climate Change Conference serve—unless provided otherwise—as the initial Nationally determined contribution.

The level of NDCs set by each country[7] will set that country's targets. However the 'contributions' themselves are not binding as a matter of international law, as they lack the specificity, normative character, or obligatory language necessary to create binding norms.[14] Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force[6] a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met.[7][15] There will be only a "name and shame" system[16] or as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News (US), a "name and encourage" plan.[17] As the agreement provides no consequences if countries do not meet their commitments, consensus of this kind is fragile. A trickle of nations exiting the agreement may trigger the withdrawal of more governments, bringing about a total collapse of the agreement.[18]

The negotiators of the Agreement however stated that the NDCs and the 2 °C reduction target were insufficient, instead, a 1.5 °C target is required, noting "with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 °C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030", and recognizing furthermore "that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 °C by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 °C".[19]

Although not the sustained temperatures over the long term to which the Agreement addresses, in the first half of 2016 average temperatures were about 1.3 °C (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average in 1880, when global record-keeping began.[20]

When the agreement achieved enough signatures to cross the threshold on 5 October 2016, US President Barack Obama claimed that "Even if we meet every target ... we will only get to part of where we need to go." He also said that "this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change. It will help other nations ratchet down their emissions over time, and set bolder targets as technology advances, all under a strong system of transparency that allows each nation to evaluate the progress of all other nations."[21][22]

Global stocktake

The global stocktake will kick off with a "facilitative dialogue" in 2018. At this convening, parties will evaluate how their NDCs stack up to the nearer-term goal of peaking global emissions and the long-term goal of achieving net zero emissions by the second half of this century.[23]

The implementation of the agreement by all member countries together will be evaluated every 5 years, with the first evaluation in 2023. The outcome is to be used as input for new nationally determined contributions of member states.[24] The stocktake will not be of contributions/achievements of individual countries but a collective analysis of what has been achieved and what more needs to be done.

The stocktake works as part of the Paris Agreement's effort to create a "ratcheting up" of ambition in emissions cuts. Because analysts have agreed that the current NDCs will not limit rising temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, the global stocktake reconvenes parties to assess how their new NDCs must evolve so that they continually reflect a country's "highest possible ambition".[23]

While ratcheting up the ambition of NDCs is a major aim of the global stocktake, it assesses efforts beyond mitigation. The 5 year reviews will also evaluate adaptation, climate finance provisions, and technology development and transfer.[23]

Structure

The Paris Agreement has a 'bottom up' structure in contrast to most international environmental law treaties which are 'top down', characterised by standards and targets set internationally, for states to implement.[25] Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that have legal force, the Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary and nationally determined targets.[26] The specific climate goals are thus politically encouraged, rather than legally bound. Only the processes governing the reporting and review of these goals are mandated under international law. This structure is especially notable for the United States—because there are no legal mitigation or finance targets, the agreement is considered an "executive agreement rather than a treaty". Because the UNFCCC treaty of 1992 received the consent of the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to take effect.[26]

Another key difference between the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol is their scopes. While the Kyoto Protocol differentiated between Annex-1 and non-Annex-1 countries, this bifurcation is blurred in the Paris Agreement, as all parties will be required to submit emissions reductions plans.[27] While the Paris Agreement still emphasizes the principle of "Common but Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capabilities"—the acknowledgement that different nations have different capacities and duties to climate action—it does not provide a specific division between developed and developing nations.[27]

Mitigation provisions and carbon markets

Article 6 has been flagged as containing some of the key provisions of the Paris Agreement.[28] Broadly, it outlines the cooperative approaches that parties can take in achieving their nationally determined carbon emissions reductions. In doing so, it helps establish the Paris Agreement as a framework for a global carbon market.[29]

Linkages and ITMOs

Paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 establish a framework to govern the international transfer of mitigation outcomes (ITMOs). The Agreement recognizes the rights of Parties to use emissions reductions outside of their own jurisdiction toward their NDC, in a system of carbon accounting and trading.[29]

This provision requires the "linkage" of various carbon emissions trading systems—because measured emissions reductions must avoid "double counting", transferred mitigation outcomes must be recorded as a gain of emission units for one party and a reduction of emission units for the other.[28] Because the NDCs, and domestic carbon trading schemes, are heterogeneous, the ITMOs will provide a format for global linkage under the auspices of the UNFCCC.[30] The provision thus also creates a pressure for countries to adopt emissions management systems—if a country wants to use more cost-effective cooperative approaches to achieve their NDCs, they will need to monitor carbon units for their economies.[31]

Sustainable Development Mechanism

Paragraphs 6.4-6.7 establish a mechanism "to contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gases and support sustainable development".[32] Though there is no specific name for the mechanism as yet, many Parties and observers have informally coalesced around the name "Sustainable Development Mechanism" or "SDM".[33][34] The SDM is considered to be the successor to the Clean Development Mechanism, a flexible mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, by which parties could collaboratively pursue emissions reductions for their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. The Sustainable Development Mechanism lays the framework for the future of the Clean Development Mechanism post-Kyoto (in 2020).

In its basic aim, the SDM will largely resemble the Clean Development Mechanism, with the dual mission to 1. contribute to global GHG emissions reductions and 2. support sustainable development.[35] Though the structure and processes governing the SDM are not yet determined, certain similarities and differences from the Clean Development Mechanism can already be seen. Notably, the SDM, unlike the Clean Development Mechanism, will be available to all parties as opposed to only Annex-1 parties, making it much wider in scope.[36]

Since the Kyoto Protocol went into force, the Clean Development Mechanism has been criticized for failing to produce either meaningful emissions reductions or sustainable development benefits in most instances.[37] It has also suffered from the low price of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs), creating less demand for projects. These criticisms have motivated the recommendations of various stakeholders, who have provided through working groups and reports, new elements they hope to see in SDM that will bolster its success.[30] The specifics of the governance structure, project proposal modalities, and overall design are expected to come during the next[when?] Conference of the Parties in Marrakesh.

Adaptation provisions

Adaptation issues garnered more focus in the formation of the Paris Agreement. Collective, long-term adaptation goals are included in the Agreement, and countries must report on their adaptation actions, making adaptation a parallel component of the agreement with mitigation.[38] The adaptation goals focus on enhancing adaptive capacity, increasing resilience, and limiting vulnerability.[39]

Ensuring finance

In the Paris Agreement, the developed countries reaffirmed the commitment to mobilize $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020, and agreed to continue mobilizing finance at the level of $100 billion a year until 2025.[40] The commitment refers to the pre-existing plan to provide US$100 billion a year in aid to developing countries for actions on climate change adaptation and mitigation.[41]

Though both mitigation and adaptation require increased climate financing, adaptation has typically received lower levels of support and has mobilised less action from the private sector.[38] A 2014 report by the OECD found that just 16 percent of global finance was directed toward climate adaptation in 2014.[42] The Paris Agreement called for a balance of climate finance between adaptation and mitigation, and specifically underscoring the need to increase adaptation support for parties most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States. The agreement also reminds parties of the importance of public grants, because adaptation measures receive less investment from the public sector.[38] John Kerry, as Secretary of State, announced that grant-based adaptation finance would double by 2020.[26]

Some specific outcomes of the elevated attention to adaptation financing in Paris include the G7 countries' announcement to provide US $420 million for Climate Risk Insurance, and the launching of a Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems (CREWS) Initiative.[43] In early March 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to the "Green Climate Fund" as "the first chunk of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks."[44][45][46] So far, the Green Climate Fund has now received over $10 billion in pledges. Notably, the pledges come from developed nations like France, the US, and Japan, but also from developing countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, and Vietnam.[26]

Loss and damage

A new issue that emerged as a focal point in the Paris negotiations rose from the fact that many of the worst effects of climate change will be too severe or come too quickly to be avoided by adaptation measures. The Paris Agreement specifically acknowledges the need to address loss and damage of this kind, and aims to find appropriate responses.[47] It specifies that loss and damage can take various forms—both as immediate impacts from extreme weather events, and slow onset impacts, such as the loss of land to sea-level rise for low-lying islands.[26]

The push to address loss and damage as a distinct issue in the Paris Agreement came from the Alliance of Small Island States and the Least Developed Countries, whose economies and livelihoods are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change.[26] Developed countries, however, worried that classifying the issue as one separate and beyond adaptation measures would create yet another climate finance provision, or might imply legal liability for catastrophic climate events.

In the end, all parties acknowledged the need for "averting, minimizing, and addressing loss and damage" but notably excludes any mention of compensation or liability.[8] The agreement also adopts the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, an institution that will attempt to address questions about how to classify, address, and share responsibility for loss and damage.[47]

Enhanced transparency framework

While each Party's NDC is not legally binding, the Parties are legally bound to have their progress tracked by technical expert review to assess achievement toward the NDC, and to determine ways to strengthen ambition.[48] Article 13 of the Paris Agreement articulates an "enhanced transparency framework for action and support" that establishes harmonized monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements. Thus, both developed and developing nations must report every two years on their mitigation efforts, and all parties will be subject to both technical and peer review.[48]

Flexibility mechanisms

While the enhanced transparency framework is universal, along with the global stocktaking to occur every 5 years, the framework is meant to provide "built-in flexibility" to distinguish between developed and developing countries' capacities. In conjunction with this, the Paris Agreement has provisions for an enhanced framework for capacity building.[49] The agreement recognizes the varying circumstances of some countries, and specifically notes that the technical expert review for each country consider that country's specific capacity for reporting.[49] The agreement also develops a Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency to assist developing countries in building the necessary institutions and processes for complying with the transparency framework.[49]

There are several ways in which flexibility mechanisms can be incorporated into the enhanced transparency framework. The scope, level of detail, or frequency of reporting may all be adjusted and tiered based on a country's capacity. The requirement for in-country technical reviews could be lifted for some less developed or small island developing countries. Ways to assess capacity include financial and human resources in a country necessary for NDC review.[49]

Adoption

The Paris Agreement was opened for signature on 22 April 2016 (Earth Day) at a ceremony in New York.[50] After several European Union states ratified the agreement in October 2016, there were enough countries that had ratified the agreement that produce enough of the world's greenhouse gases for the agreement to enter into force.[51] The agreement went into effect on 4 November 2016.[2]

Negotiations

Within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, legal instruments may be adopted to reach the goals of the convention. For the period from 2008 to 2012, greenhouse gas reduction measures were agreed in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The scope of the protocol was extended until 2020 with the Doha Amendment to that protocol in 2012.[52]

During the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the Durban Platform (and the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action) was established with the aim to negotiate a legal instrument governing climate change mitigation measures from 2020. The resulting agreement was to be adopted in 2015.[53]

Adoption





Heads of delegations at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.

Main article: 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference

At the conclusion of COP 21 (the 21st meeting of the Conference of the Parties, which guides the Conference), on 12 December 2015, the final wording of the Paris Agreement was adopted by consensus by all of the 195 UNFCCC participating member states and the European Union[3] to reduce emissions as part of the method for reducing greenhouse gas. In the 12 page Agreement,[46] the members promised to reduce their carbon output "as soon as possible" and to do their best to keep global warming "to well below 2 degrees C" [3.6 degrees F].[54]

Signature and entry into force





Signing by John Kerry in United Nations General Assembly Hall for the United States

The Paris Agreement was open for signature by States and regional economic integration organizations that are Parties to the UNFCCC (the Convention) from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017 at the UN Headquarters in New York.[55]

The agreement stated that it would enter into force (and thus become fully effective) only if 55 countries that produce at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions (according to a list produced in 2015)[56] ratify, accept, approve or accede to the agreement.[57][58] On 1 April 2016, the United States and China, which together represent almost 40% of global emissions, issued a joint statement confirming that both countries would sign the Paris Climate Agreement.[59][60] 175 Parties (174 states and the European Union) signed the agreement on the first date it was open for signature.[50][61] On the same day, more than 20 countries issued a statement of their intent to join as soon as possible with a view to joining in 2016. With ratification by the European Union, the Agreement obtained enough parties to enter into effect as of 4 November 2016.

European Union and its member states

Both the EU and its member states are individually responsible for ratifying the Paris Agreement. A strong preference was reported that the EU and its 28 member states deposit their instruments of ratification at the same time to ensure that neither the EU nor its member states engage themselves to fulfilling obligations that strictly belong to the other,[62] and there were fears that disagreement over each individual member state's share of the EU-wide reduction target, as well as Britain's vote to leave the EU might delay the Paris pact.[63] However, the European Parliament approved ratification of the Paris Agreement on 4 October 2016,[51] and the EU deposited its instruments of ratification on 5 October 2016, along with several individual EU member states.[63]

The head of the Paris Conference, France's foreign minister Laurent Fabius, said this "ambitious and balanced" plan is a "historic turning point" in the goal of reducing global warming.[64] One year on, the ratification of the Paris Agreement was celebrated by the Mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo by illuminating the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe, Paris' most iconic monuments, in green.[65]

Parties and signatories

As of December 2016, 191 states and the European Union have signed the Agreement. 148 of those parties have ratified or acceded to the Agreement, most notably China and India, the countries with three of the four largest greenhouse gas emissions of the signatories' total (about 42% together).[1][66][67]

Party or signatory[1]

Percentage of greenhouse

gases for ratification[56]

Date of signature

Date of deposit of instruments

of ratification or accession

Date when agreement
enters

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

MANCHESTER


As I sit at my desk and watch the desert doves through the window as they build their nests and coo at one another, I am having a difficult time digesting the barbarity that has taken place in Manchester, England.



            So many children, young people and their parents murdered because of a sick and twisted ideology that purports to be the word of God, but in fact is nothing more than a lie. How could it be anything else but a lie? The God I know, the one true God, or Allah if you wish, would not sanctify murder and carnage such as this. It is the dogma of man that supports this kind of thing. As far as I know there are two versions of the Koran’, the one for the Sunni and the one for the Shite. One speaks of peace and love for his fellow man, and the other speaks of conversion to Islam or death. I find it difficult to believe that God, or Allah would encourage the murder of children.



            Over the past few months, President Trump has created a great deal of controversy with his Executive orders banning immigration from certain Muslim countries. Is it unfair? Of course, it is, but in light of what we are seeing, perhaps it is prudent.



            I lived in England for several years. I have visited Manchester, and many other parts of that wonderful Island, and I can tell you that as a people they were kind, curious, and friendly toward me. They did not deserve this. And most especially the children, young people and parents did not deserve what has taken place. Is England perfect? No, it’s not. But as the years have passed things have changed and so have people. The British most of all I think.



            I think that it is time for us to consider what must be done to stop this tragic blood shed by a people who honestly believe that when they die they will go to paradise. It is time to show them the error of their way and that God, Allah, or whatever you conceive the deity you worship will send you to rot in hell for taking the lives of the innocent who know nothing of politics, or the darker side of mankind.



            In the past I have spoken about the eradication of these animals, but now I have to wonder how we can stop and convince them that this is not the answer. My heart goes out to the survivors, and to the victims. It goes out to those who have spent the past many hours trying to help them, and to those who have opened their home to those in need of help. To the Doctors and nurse who are trying desperately to save lives and often times failing. To all of them, you have my prayers for what they are worth, and the hope that God hears me and will finally bring peace to all of us.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

First One Hundred plus Days of the Trumpster


Well, out of fairness I gave him his first one hundred days just to see what would happen. Not, of course out of fairness, but because I wanted to see if he could actually pull it off or come out of it looking like the obvious idiot that he is. He had a few moments when he did relatively good, such as with the Syrian debacle, which in my estimation may be a little questionable. So far he’s been pulled into court twice with his immigration policy, The Obamacare repeal and replace has turned into a cluster f-ck, and his big mouth is giving away classified information to our adversaries. Jesus! What a Yob.



On many different occasions, I have stated that he could at least act a little more Presidential, and so far, he seems to be getting closer to the deep in of the pool. He also seems to be running the White House like he ran his reality TV Show “The Apprentice”, firing people left and right. Not to mention that somewhere in the White House someone is leaking everything he says and does on a regular basis. Which of course is designed to do everything it can to discredit his administration. And of course, the media and press is eating it up like a wolf goes after a piece of raw meat, making sure that the public knows everything that’s going on whether it’s true or not. I trust the press about as much as I can throw their collective asses, and frankly there are times when I trust myself even less. But hey! This is my blog and these are my opinions so it doesn’t really matter, I guess. I do try to get it right, but occasionally I screw the pooch.



Throughout it all, I can’t help but wonder what would happen if those damned Democrats and those moronic Republicans would finally get their shit together and stop the silliness that is going on in both the House and Senate. It’s obvious that these asswipes on both sides of the isle have absolutely no interest in serving the people who elected them. They certainly aren’t doing us any good, and all they seem to be doing is towing the party line. Which, as it turns out is nothing more than an anchor around our necks where we ultimately pay the price, either financially or even our lives. I’ve written this blog for years in the hope that someone would listen, but in reality its turned into a monumental session in self stimulation, if you know what I mean.



Despite all of this I would still be willing to give Trump a chance if the media and those turkeys in the Congress would back off and start doing the job they were actually hired to do. However, with North Korea, ISIS, and Russia after our butts, he had better get his own stuff together, stay the hell off of Twitter, and gain a true understanding of what it means to be a President. You don’t run a country on social media, and you certainly don’t make arbitrary decisions without thinking about what you are doing. If you continue to do so, you, yourself might hear those words you have made so famous. “Your Fired!”


Sunday, February 19, 2017

When did News quit being News and start to be Propaganda?

Having been in Journalism for nearly thirty years in one form or another, I write this blog to vent my spleen and from time to time make people think a little bit.

Back when I first started for a local paper in Brookneal, Virginia, I was taught, often the hard way, that when you reported the news you were required to get facts. If the facts weren't there you didn't make up facts. You reported the news straight. You didn't add personal opinions, you just reported the event whatever it was and that was it.

As the years went by I discovered that there actually was a collection of volumes of what was known as Journalism Law, which very clearly stated what was or was not acceptable when reporting the news. These were compiled from court cases and other incidents that had taken place over the years. The crux of  the matter was that while the First Amendment did indeed apply, if the content was not true and damaging to an individual or organization the reporter or news organization responsible would pay a price.

In short, the news was reported impartially and as humanly accurately as possible. There was no slant to it, there was no double meaning, and there was no personal bias. Now it seems that most of the major news organization are doing everything that they can to destroy President Trump, or at the very least make his policies or attempts to solve this nations problems problematic. It's clear that when the man calls these news organizations out for printing or broadcasting "Fake News", they go into meltdown mode and go on the attack. Frankly there is only one News organization I trust, and to be honest there are times when I question their impartiality. But they seem to do the best job of broadcasting the news, while the others start pitching fits like two years old.

What pisses me off more than anything is that fact that these morons deliberately broadcast news that is twisted and inaccurate driving the American people into a frenzy over bullshit, and the American people are stupid enough to believe it. But then it seems there is now a certain segment of the American people who are looking for any excuse to riot and destroy anything they can. It doesn't matter that in many cases it took other people years to build up a business that is destroyed in just moments. And if you look at it carefully you can trace it all right back to the feet of the news organizations printing and broadcasting lies or as El Presidente calls it, "Fake News". 

As a journalist, this type of news reporting is disgusting and makes me sick to my stomach. How dare they take a profession that is supposed to keep the people informed, tell the truth, and above all be impartial and pervert it like this. Edward R. Morrow must be spinning in his grave.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Seriously??

So Far Trump's first one hundred days have been at the very least interesting and in reality a monumental cluster-fuck.

Interestingly, not because Trump or the majority of his staff are incompetent boobs, but more because the media and the Democratic Party are doing everything they can do bring Trump's administration crashing down around his head. I sat back and looked at the history of the presidents and discovered that Democratic Presidents have pulled even bigger boners that Trump or his team and no one mentioned it or even brought the subject up. Obama being a case in point. During his first campaign he railed about the economy and the national debt and then when he got into office he immediately raised the debt ceiling, gave trillions of dollars to cronies and bailed out companies "To big to fail". What the fuck! If a company is failing let it fail. There was something fundamentally wrong with it to begin with.  Even after all of this nothing was said by either the Democrats or even the Republicans.

What pisses me of more than anything was that damned Obamacare. I, and others screamed and yelled about what would happen with this piece of shit (and it did) yet when a member of Congress found his balls and stood up and told Obama that he was lying. So what does the Congress do? They censure him before congress. It didn't matter that the guy was right and when Obama care passed it was proven.

Look, Trump seems to be a screwball, but the fact of the matter is that he is attempting to keep all of his campaign promises. What President in the history of this country ever did that? The Democrats have stated that they will do everything they possibly can to sabotage anything that Trump attempts to do and have done everything they could to agitate the people. Turns out that this bullshit the actors and others spouted about leaving the country if Trump got elected was exactly that. Bullshit. I haven't seen anyone leave yet.

With regard to the illegal immigrants trying to sneak into Canada, well Canada will take anyone and proved it during the Vietnam War. As for the illegal roundups by ICE. That one was a bit of a surprise, and frankly I think that Trump might have over stepped himself there. But don't you find it interesting that all of a sudden what is law has become a weapon in the Democratic arsenal of civil unrest? Now the dweebs are pulling exactly what the Republicans did and are comparing Trump with Hitler and comparing him to the burning of the Rieshstach, and that he will do what Hitler did. Take total and absolute control. It doesn't matter to them that if that bitch Clinton had made it into office we would have gone farther down the crapper that we already have.

I'm so fucking tired of this crap. Come on people, instead of rioting and destroying businesses that it took some poor smuck years to billed up take up a hobby or something productive. All you're doing is making asses out of yourselves and making America into a farce.

Monday, February 6, 2017

Alright, I was pissed and I was more than a little irratated.

What? You don't get ticked off from time to time?? I entered melt down mode when I was informed that I now had to pay $140.00 a month out of an SSI check that I am barely making it on to begin with. Problem is that the government talks about minimum wage at $15.00 an hour when in reality they pay the retired and walking wounded less than .63 cents an hour and expects them to smile sweetly and bend over without the benefit of a reach around. Then they expect you to pay for your own medicines to boot! Which by the way cost higher than a giraffes asshole to start with, so you then have to make the decision of whether or not you're going to eat for that week or survive by dumpster diving. Been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt. Don't like it and certainly don't recommend it. Yet the government expects you to do your part to help the country.

Over the last two hundred or so years we have gone from a nation that could actually take care of itself, to a nation that is so regulated and govenmentize we can't even take a shit without being taxed for it. It has even gotten to the point where the government was actually considering taxing us for the rain that fell on the roofs of the buildings we used or lived in. No Kidding! Anything for the all holy dollar.

My point is this. As a nation our government is failing. We sit by while the political parties use every dirty trick they can think of to discredit Presidential nominees, without even giving a thought as to the damage it does to the individual or his or her family. They don't care, and for the most part it seems that the American people don't care either. What happened guys? Some where along the line you loose your sense of honor? Our government is failing and you sit back as though you don't give a rat's ass. Oh, I get it! As long as it doesn't interfere with your football games, television, or beer, then it's ok. Jesus! What a bunch of losers. I guess it's true. All of the real Americans are serving in the military so you can sit on your asses. Guess that makes them look like a bunch of horses asses, doesn't it? I mean, after all they're willing to put their lives on the line just so a bunch of lazy couch potatoes can just sit there and do nothing.

What pisses me off more than anything else is the fact that ever since Obama, the rest of the world had come to look upon America as a joke and in all probability easy pickings. Lets see, Iran, gets sanctions added on for violating that joke of a treaty and then in response launches five more the day after the sanctions, like its daring us to do something. I don't know about Trump, but my response would be to call a special session of the middle east nations and make arrangements to bomb the shit out of them and destroy their nuclear capabilities. What bunker busters 24/7 for three months? I'd say that would pretty much get the message across. It would also show the rest of the world that pissing us off is not a good idea. Especially the Chinese and Russians. But hey! That's just me. I don't have a clue what Trump is thinking about, and from the looks of it neither does he.