Chuck And Nancy Not Happy – Trump Immigration Plan Not A DACA Surrender

Capture

By Rick Wells

Things aren’t quite as cordial as they were a month ago between President and “Chuck and Nancy.” The President released his immigration principles late Sunday evening and immediately his best Democrat friends for a month went on the attack.

Schumer and Pelosi issued a joint statement saying, “The administration can’t be serious about compromise or helping the Dreamers if they begin with a list that is anathema to the Dreamers, to the immigrant [illegal alien squatter] community and to the vast majority of Americans.”

As is usually the case, Chuck and Nancy were a little off in their figures, in their favor. President Trump was elected on a pledge of strong border and immigration law enforcement. Saying a vast majority support benefits for illegals runs counter to the reality of who is sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office.

They went on to say that if President Trump was “serious” in their discussions last month about helping illegals presently hiding behind the DACA shield “his staff has not made a good faith effort to do so.” Perhaps they haven’t made a good faith effort to surrender, the customary Republican posture when facing Democrats and what “Chuck and Nancy” may have been expecting.

The 70-point immigration enforcement plan the White House submitted to Congress contains the stiffest reforms ever proposed by an administration. It includes the elimination of loopholes illegals and Democrats have used to circumvent US law.

The plans include a border wall, more ICE agents, a crackdown on sanctuary cities and stricter limits on chain migration. All of these issues, according to the White House, must be included in any proposed DACA legislation.

Additionally, the plan gives border agents more leeway to deny illegals entry at the border, to arrest and hold them when they are detected in the interior, and provides for an expedited deportation process.

Among the loopholes for circumventing the law that the plan closes or reduces are:

  • Lax asylum standards, which are abused by illegals. Obama regime policies enabled illegals to claim at the border, through certain “magic words,” a fear of conditions in their home country that earn them instant protections.
  • The Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) would have to prove they really are without parents and are fleeing abuse, in order to be granted admission and protections.
  • Visitors who come legally but overstay their visas — perhaps the majority of illegals in the US, would now be guilty of a misdemeanor, a new criminal penalty.
  • A 2001 Supreme Court decision forcing the release of tens of thousands of illegals, including murderers into American society, would be corrected.
  • The ability of federal, state and local authorities to detain illegal immigrants would be fully enshrined in law, settling the debate over sanctuary cities.

It also proposes canceling the annual visa “diversity lottery” and requiring all businesses to use E-Verify to assure that job applicants are legally able to work in the United States.

Pandering Hack Senator Dick Durbin joined with his comrades in denouncing the attempts to actually secure our nation, exposing themselves once again as being nothing more than open border, anti-sovereignty globalists.

Durbin said, “Please do not put the burden on the Dreamers to accept every aspect of comprehensive immigration reform to get a chance to become citizens of the United States. That’s too much to ask.” It’s not comprehensive immigration reform and the President’s plan isn’t asking anything of the so-called Dreamers but rather their enablers in Congress.

It is the Democrats, behind the false front of the DACA protectees that Durbin is actually claiming can’t go along with the measures to create a secure America.

Thankfully, President Trump has returned to his senses and the positions he was elected on. It’s also great that we’re no longer aligned with “Chuck and Nancy.” We’re too good for that. It was beyond offensive.

Iran ready to scrap nuclear deal ‘within hours’ if US imposes new sanctions – Rouhani

Iran could backtrack on its 2015 nuclear agreement with world powers “within hours” if Washington slaps new sanctions on Tehran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned, noting that the US has proved to be a “unreliable negotiator.”
*

“If America wants to go back to the experience [of imposing sanctions], Iran would certainly return in a short time – not a week or a month but within hours – to conditions more advanced than before the start of negotiations,” Rouhani told a session of parliament broadcast live on state television, as cited by Reuters.

*

“The world has clearly seen that under Trump, America has ignored international agreements and, in addition to undermining the [nuclear deal], has broken its word on the Paris agreement and the Cuba accord… and that the United States is not a good partner or a reliable negotiator,” he said.

In early August, US President Donald Trump signed into law a bill, passed by the US Congress, which imposes sanctions on Iran, Russia, and North Korea.

Following the decision, prominent libertarian and former Congressman Ron Paul accused Trump of betraying his promises to the American people by seeking a new conflict with either Iran or North Korea, warning the president that any such war will put an end to his term.

“President Trump seems to be impatiently racing toward at least one disastrous war. Maybe two. The big question is who will be first? North Korea or Iran? Ron Paul wrote in his weekly column published on the site of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity last month.

Trump “seems determined to push a confrontation, while Iran was actually in compliance” with the deal, Paul said.

Tehran earlier said the latest round of sanctions violates the landmark 2015 agreement. Iran officially agreed to halt parts of its nuclear program and subject other sectors to increased UN monitoring in exchange for the removal of economic sanctions, in July two years ago when, following months of negotiations, the long-awaited deal was signed between Tehran and major world powers – the US, France, Britain, Russia, and China, plus Germany.

Under the deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Tehran also agreed to cap its uranium enrichment below the level needed for bomb-grade material. It also vowed to reduce its enriched uranium stockpile from around 10,000kg to 300kg for 15 years and agreed to international inspections. In response, Western countries agreed to lift sanctions.

“Iran would not be the first to pull out of the nuclear deal, but it will not remain silent about the US repeated violations of the accord. Those who want to tear up the nuclear deal should know that they will be ripping up their own political life,” the Iranian president said earlier this month.

In late July, the US government imposed sanctions against six Iranian companies after Tehran launched a satellite into orbit, saying they werecentral” to Iran’s ballistic missile program. Six enterprises listed as subsidiaries of the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group were placed on the US sanctions list after what Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin described as a “provocative space launch.”

Kaveh Afrasiabi, former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, called the latest sanctions ineffective and utile. “Unfortunately, despite the fact the Trump administration has repeatedly certified Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement, it continues to take these counterproductive steps that threaten the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and elicit an Iranian response, as we have seen by the Iranian Parliament sanctioning some American entities, and Iran for a fifth time complaining to the JCPOA joint commission.”

On July 27, Iran successfully tested the Simorgh rocket, a two-stage vehicle meant to deliver small space satellites into orbit. The US government said the technology used in the launch is inherently designed to to carry a nuclear payload, in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

Tehran denied its missile development breaches the resolution, saying its missiles are not designed to carry nuclear weapons.

ASSANGE: Humanity Threatened By AI-Controlled Social Media…

Screen Shot 2017-06-13 at 6.24.30 PM

WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange predicts an impending dystopic world where human perception is no match for Artificial Intelligence-controlled propaganda and the consequences of AI are lost on its creators, who envision a nirvana-like future.

*

Assange spoke of the threat of AI-controlled social media via video link at rapper and activist M.I.A.’s Meltdown Festival in the Southbank Centre, London.

READ MORE: Assange wants support for NSA whistleblower as WikiLeaks offers $10k reward to ‘expose’ reporter

Speaking about the future of AI, Assange told a panel including Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek that there will be a time when AI will be used to adjust perception.

“Imagine a Daily Mail run by essentially Artificial Intelligence, what does that look like when there’s only the Daily Mail worldwide? That’s what Facebook and Twitter will shift into,” he said.

Assange referenced the apparent intense pressure Facebook and Google were under to ensure Emmanuel Macron, and not Marine Le Pen, won last month’s French presidential election runoff.

When asked by M.I.A. if AI and VR technology will make society more vulnerable to becoming apolitical, Assange replied: Yes, of course we can be influenced, but I don’t see that as the main problem.”

“Human beings have always been influenced by sophisticated systems of production, information and experience, [such as the] BBC for example.”

The technologies “just amplify the power of the ability to project into the mind,” he added.

The main concern in Assange’s eyes centers around how AI can be used to advance propaganda.

“The most important development as far as the fate of human beings are concerned is that we are getting close to the threshold where the traditional propaganda function that is employed by BBC, The Daily Mail, and cultures also, can be encapsulated by AI processes,” Assange said.

“When you have AI programs harvesting all the search queries and YouTube videos someone uploads it starts to lay out perceptual influence campaigns, twenty to thirty moves ahead. This starts to become totally beneath the level of human perception.”

*

Using Google as an example, and comparing the wit involved to a game of chess, he said at this level human beings become powerless as they can’t even see it happening.

Admitting his vision was dystopian, he suggested that he could be wrong.

“Maybe there will be a new band of technologically empowered human beings that can see this [rueful] fate coming towards us, [which] will be able to extract value or diminish it by directly engaging with it – that’s also possible.”

Another insight offered by the WikiLeaks founder was his opinion that engineers involved in AI lack perception about what they’re doing.

“I know from our sources deep inside the Silicon Valley institution[s] that they genuinely believe that they are going to produce AI that’s so powerful, relatively soon, that people will have their brains digitized, uploaded to these AIs and live forever in simulation, therefore have eternal life.”

“It’s like a religion for atheists,” he added. “And given you’re in a simulation, why not program the simulation to have endless drug and sex orgy parties around you.”

Assange said this vision makes them work harder and the dystopian consequences of their work is overshadowed by cultural and industrial bias to not perceiving it.

He concluded that the normal perception someone would have regarding their work has been supplanted with “this ridiculous quasi-religious model that’s it all going to lead to nirvana.”

Federal worker busted for leaking top-secret NSA docs on Russian hacking…

Screen Shot 2017-06-06 at 11.27.36 AM

A 25-year-old Federal contractor was charged Monday with leaking a top secret NSA report — detailing how Russian military hackers targeted US voting systems just days before the election.

The highly classified intelligence document, published Monday by The Intercept, describes how Russia managed to infiltrate America’s voting infrastructure using a spear-phishing email scheme that targeted local government officials and employees.

It claims the calculated cyberattack may have even been more far-reaching and devious than previously thought.

The report is believed to be the most detailed US government account of Russia’s interference to date.It was allegedly provided to the Intercept by 25-year-old Reality Leigh Winner, of Augusta, who appeared in court Monday after being arrested at her home over the weekend.

She was charged with removing and mailing classified materials to a news outlet, DOJ officials said.

“Releasing classified material without authorization threatens our nation’s security and undermines public faith in government,” Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein explained in a statement. “People who are trusted with classified information and pledge to protect it must be held accountable when they violate that obligation.”

Winner, who works as contractor at Pluribus International Corporation, allegedly leaked the report in early May. A federal official told NBC News that she had, in fact, given it to the Intercept.

According to the document, it was the Russian military intelligence that conducted the cyber attacks last year.

Specifically, operatives from the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, are said to have targeted employees at a US election software company last August and then again in October.

While the name of the company is unclear, the report refers to an undisclosed product made by VR Systems — an electronic voting services and equipment vendor in Florida that has contracts in eight states, including New York.

The hackers were given a “cyber espionage mandate specifically directed at U.S. and foreign elections,” the report says.

On August 24, 2016, the group sent the employees fake emails, which were disguised as messages from Google. At least one of the workers was believed to be compromised.

In late October, the group established an “operational” Gmail account and posed as an employee from VR Systems — using previously obtained documents to launch another spear-phishing attack “targeting US local government organizations,” the report says.

According to the NSA, the hackers struck on either October 31 or November 1, sending spear-fishing emails to at least 122 different email addresses “associated with named local government organizations.”

Modal Trigger
A social media post by winner in February.Reuters

They were also likely sent to officials “involved in the management of voter registration systems,” the report says.

The emails were said to have contained weaponized Microsoft Word attachments, which were set up to appear as unharmful documentation for the VR Systems’ EViD voter database — but were actually embedded with automated software commands that are secretly turned on as soon as the user opens the document.

The hack ultimately gave the Russians a back door and the ability to deliver any sort of malware or malicious software they wanted, the report says.

In addition, the NSA document also describes two other incidents of Russian meddling prior to the election.

In one, the hackers posed as a different voting company, referred to as “US company 2,” from which they sent phony test emails — offering “election-related products and services.”

The other operation was said to be conducted by the same group of operatives, and involved sending emails to addresses at the American Samoa Election Office, in the attempt to uncover more existing accounts before striking again.

It is ultimately unclear what came of the cyberattack, but the NSA report firmly states that the Russians had been intent on “mimicking a legitimate absentee ballot-related service provider.”

“It is unknown, whether the aforementioned spear-phishing deployment successfully compromised the intended victims, and what potential data could have been accessed by the cyber actor,” the NSA states of the result of the hacking.

While the government employees were only hit with simple login-stealing tactics, experts told the Intercept that such operations could prove even more dangerous than malware attacks in some instances.

VR Systems doesn’t sell voting machines, but holds contracts in New York, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia — making it a prime target for those who want to disrupt the vote and cause chaos come election day.

“If someone has access to a state voter database, they can take malicious action by modifying or removing information,” Pamela Smith, president of election integrity watchdog Verified Voting, told the Intercept.

“This could affect whether someone has the ability to cast a regular ballot, or be required to cast a ‘provisional’ ballot — which would mean it has to be checked for their eligibility before it is included in the vote,” she said. “And it may mean the voter has to jump through certain hoops such as proving their information to the election official before their eligibility is affirmed.”

At least one US intelligence official admitted to the Intercept that the Russian hackers described in the NSA report could have disrupted the voting process on November 8, by specifically targeting locations where VR Systems’ products were in use. They cited the simple possibility of compromising an election poll book system, which could cause widespread damage in certain places.

“You could even do that preferentially in areas for voters that are likely to vote for a certain candidate and thereby have a partisan effect,” explained Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society.

In response to the report, VR Systems’ Chief Operating Officer Ben Martin told the Intercept: “Phishing and spear-phishing are not uncommon in our industry. We regularly participate in cyber alliances with state officials and members of the law enforcement community in an effort to address these types of threats. We have policies and procedures in effect to protect our customers and our company.”

 

 

TRUMP: ‘Paris’ less about climate, more about others gaining advantage over USA…

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.16.59 PM

‘I represent the people of Pittsburgh NOT Paris’: Trump pulls U.S. out of climate accord saying it is a foreign attempt to seize American jobs and American wealth – and is immediately attacked by Obama.

By Francesca Chambers

Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris accord on climate change on Wednesday afternoon – deriding it as bad for American jobs and bad for the environment.

He dared opprobrium from foreign leaders, environmentalists, scientists and celebrities to say he was putting the jobs of American workers first.

‘We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us any more. And they won’t be. They won’t be,’ Trump declared. ‘I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.’

Before he even sat down, his predecessor Barack Obama launched an all-out assault, saying Trump ‘joins a small handful of nations that reject the future’.

Elon Musk, the Tesla billionaire, said he was quitting advising the White House, tweeting: ‘Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.’

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.19.47 PM

America first: Trump was unrepentant in saying he was standing up for U.S. interests

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.22.23 PM

Trump complained in the White House’s Rose Garden that major polluters like China are allowed to increase their emissions under the agreement in a way that the US cannot. India is hinging its participation on billions of dollars of foreign aid.

The deal is a ‘massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries,’ he said.

‘The Paris accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.

‘This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States,’ Trump said.

TRUMP’S KEY WORDS ON CLIMATE DEAL

On the accord… 

As of today the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. 

This includes ending the implementation of the National Determined Contribution and – very importantly – the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a vast fortune. 

The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States. 

On its cost… 

Compliance…could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the National Rconomic Research Associates.

The cost to the economy at this time [by 2050] would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and in many cases much worse than that. 

America first… 

The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense. 

They don’t put America first. I do and I always will. 

The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices, and in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance. 

What he wants now…

We want fair treatment for its citizens and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers. 

We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won’t be. They won’t be.

Trump said he would also end the United States’ participation in the United NationsGreen Climate Fund.

In a slap at European leaders who’d lobbied him last week, including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Trump said the Paris exit is ‘a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.’

‘Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the United States economy that our own citizens and their elected representatives,’ Trump proclaimed.

Trump told off naysayers in a lengthy explanation of his decision and the effect he expects it to have on the US economy.

‘The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense. They don’t put America first. I do and I always will,’ he said.

He outlined what he said the accord would do to the American economy: 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025; $3 trillion in lost GDP by 2050; and an average household income loss of $7,000.

Trump said he would be willing to get back in but only if he is allowed to renegotiate the terms of the United States’ participation.

Among Trump’s reasons for leaving the accord was the ‘massive legal liability’ that administration lawyers had warned him about.

The Republican president also said he could not support the agreement ‘in good conscience,’ from an environmental stand point, either, ‘as someone who cares deeply the environment, which I do,’ because it is non-binding.

It imposes ‘no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters,’ Trump said – naming India and China as countries which could ‘do what they like;.,

Sitting in the front row for Trump’s outdoor announcement chief strategist Steve Bannon, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Vice President Mike Pence – all of whom were part of a push to leave the agreement.

Trump ended months of speculation in an afternoon Rose Garden event promoted with all the anticipation of a major press conference.

He sided with conservative groups over world leaders and his daughter Ivanka, declaring that the accord poses a dire threat to the American economy and jobs market.

She was not there to see more conservative advisers applaud loudly as he said the United States was out of the treaty. Neither was her husband, Jared Kushner, one of his closest aides, who had also been said to have lobbied to stay in.

The White House tipped its hand just an hour before the president spoke, when it distributed a set of ‘talking points’ to allied organizations that proclaimed, ‘The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President’s action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first.’

The document says the US is exiting the international climate accord because it is in the best interest of US economy.

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.24.27 PM

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.25.36 PM

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.27.05 PM

A successful businessman before he was elected, Trump has already taken steps to end the ‘job-killing’ regulations his predecessor enacted in order to bring the US in line with the environmental pact.

In a May 26, 2016 speech to a gas- and oil-friendly crowd in Bismarck, North Dakota, he declared flatly: ‘We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement.’

Trump also said then that if he were elected he would stop making payments to United Nations programs that fight global warming.

The talking points the White House gave to conservative organizations on Thursday said, ‘The Accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama Administration and signed out of desperation.’

‘It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy and job growth while extracting meaningless commitments from the world’s top global emitters, like China. The U.S. is already leading the world in energy production and doesn’t need a bad deal that will harm American workers.’

Trump, the most unpredictable U.S. president in a century, performed as expected despite sending signals of ambivalence about his yes-or-no decision during the week and telling reporters that he was ‘hearing from a lot of people, both ways.’

Asked if America would be in or out, Trump would only say: ‘You’re going to find out very soon.’

European allies had begged Trump not to ditch the pact last week, and the White House said the president was considering their position.

When White House sources said he was pulling out on Wednesday morning, the reports set off worldwide condemnation led by the United Nations secretary general.

The Vatican called the move a ‘slap in the face’ before it was announced.

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, said: ‘If he really does [pull out], it would be a huge slap in the face for us. It will be a disaster for everyone.’

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.28.58 PM

Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, Gap, Mars and Tiffany & Co. joined a group of large businesses in publishing an open letter to Trump asking him not to end the United States participation in the global warming agreement.

Their ask ran as a full page ad in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal on Thursday.

Lakely said Thursday that there were four possible outcomes of Trump’s deliberations – including a pullout that could spark lawsuits and an end-run involving sending the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

‘The Senate fails to get the two-thirds votes necessary to ratify the treaty, and it’s really dead, instantly,’ he said.

Emmanuel Macron, the newly elected French president, said at a weekend summit in Italy he was sure Trump would back the deal after listening to his G7 counterparts.

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.30.10 PM

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.30.41 PM

EVERY BAD THING WE WILL AVOID BY REJECTING THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORDS

Screenshot 2017-06-01 10.38.16

Withdrawal from suspect treaty would greatly benefit US economy

By John Carney – JUNE 1, 2017

The president is expected to formally announce this week that the U.S. will exit the Paris climate agreement, a move that will have negligible impact on the environment but will have major benefits for the U.S. economy.

The Paris climate agreement was deeply flawed from its start. It was legally and constitutionally suspect, based on politics rather than science, and contained unrealistic goals. It promised not only a dramatic expansion of the administrative state and a huge increase in the regulatory burden on American businesses, it threatened to put the brakes on U.S. economic output at a time when most economists think the U.S. will struggle to achieve even a meager two percent growth.

It’s likely that it was already acting as a drag on the U.S. economy. After President Barack Obama unofficially committed the U.S. to the Paris agreement, businesses began preparing for its impact. Knowing that it would diminish U.S. economic output, businesses invested less and directed more investment toward less-productive technology to meet the climate deal’s mandates. Banks and financiers withdrew capital from sectors expected to suffer under the climate deal and pushed it toward those expected to benefit. A classic example of regulation-driven malinvestment.

The Paris climate agreement was adopted on December 12, 2015 at the conclusion of the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference. Parties to the agreement are expected to begin taking measures to reduce emissions in 2020, mainly by enacting rules that sharply reduce carbon emissions. Countries are supposed to publicly announce “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to combat climate change and periodically report on their progress.  The Obama administration announced the U.S. would commit to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, a quarter of which was supposedly achievable by the implementation of the previous administration’s legally-questionable Clean Power Plan.

To get the rest of the way, the U.S. would have to make major investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner motor vehicles. This likely explains why the Paris climate deal was so popular with many in Silicon Valley and many on Wall Street. It promised a bonanza of spending and investment, most likely subsidized by taxpayers, in technologies that wouldn’t otherwise be attractive. It was practically calling out for making self-driving, solar powered cars mandatory.

Dropping out of the agreement will let the U.S. avoid several deleterious effects of the agreement.

  1. Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.
  2. Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.
  3. Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and OhioThe industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.
  4. Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big BusinessBig businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.
  5. Making America Poorer Again.  A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less. 
  6. Much PoorerThe overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.

The Paris deal was, in short, a disaster for America and a nothing-burger for climate.

VETS BOYCOTT USAA FOR PULLING HANNITY ADS

USAA joins leftist campaign to shut down free speech

Jamie White | Infowars.com – MAY 26, 2017

USAA is the latest company to pull its advertising from Sean Hannity’s show following a string of ad cancellations from numerous companies after the Fox News host started focusing on murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich and his reported ties to WikiLeaks.

The financial services company, which caters to military members and their families, made a statement on Twitter that it had discontinued running its ads during Hannity because it was against company policy to have “ads running during certain opinion-based programs” – a policy which USAA apparently didn’t enforce before.

Screen Shot 2017-05-26 at 6.28.09 PM

Several companies, including Cars.com and Peloton, have already suspended their advertising from Hannity’s show after the host looked into the possibility that Seth Rich was killed because he was allegedly a Wikileaks source.

Hannity then accused liberal lobbying organization Media Matters for America (MMFA) of “liberal fascism,” claiming they were mounting a targeted campaign against him after they released a list of companies that advertised during Hannity’s show.

Screen Shot 2017-05-26 at 6.29.12 PM

“To all my friends. Today, George Soros, & Hillary Clinton supported Mediamatters is targeting all of my advertisers to try and get me fired,” Hannity tweeted Wednesday.

Screen Shot 2017-05-26 at 6.30.08 PM

“Spoke to many advertisers. They are being inundated with emails to stop advertising on my show. This is Soros/Clinton/Brock liberal fascism.”

Hannity’s show wasn’t the only news outlet that was financially targeted for political purposes.

Earlier this year, online advertiser Adroll severed ties with Infowars in an effort to suppress its political speech, evidenced by Adroll’s failure to provide proof that Infowars somehow violated its “Website Content” guidelines, and its partnership with technocratic companies like Facebook and Google – staunch supporters of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race.

This conclusion is also supported by the fact that Adroll even slandered Breitbart News, accusing them of “hate speech” with no examples to back up its claim.

In reality, the political establishment via organizations like MMFA are pressuring large corporations to create a chilling effect on free speech through economic warfare by cutting financial ties with libertarian and conservative platforms like Infowars and Hannity.