WHY WON’T THE LEFT ATTACK BILDERBERG, THE REAL 1% DOMINATED BY WHITE MALES?


060217bilderbergdudes

Why does the Left ignore Bilderberg when it’s literally made up of mostly white males who represent .0001% of the world’s population?

Bernie Sanders launched an entire presidential campaign on striking back against the 1%, and he was also a proponent of diversity, so why won’t Bernie supporters speak out against Bilderberg?

The secretive group currently meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, is the source of all the problems Bernie Sanders campaigned on.

“[Bilderberg is] trumpeting the diversity of a conference where less than 25% of the participants are female, which would be a huge step forward, if it were currently 1963,” the Guardian’s Charlie Skelton pointed out. “And as for racial diversity, there are more senior executives of Goldman Sachs at this year’s Bilderberg than there are people of color.”

“Perhaps by ‘diverse’ they mean that some of the participants own hedge funds, whereas others own vast industrial conglomerates. Some are on the board of HSBC, others are on the board of BP. Some are lobbyists, others are being lobbied. That sort of thing.”

So why won’t the Left separate itself from corporate-controlled globalism? You would think a group of unelected bankers and corporate masters controlling the fate of humanity would be the PERFECT enemy of the Left.

Especially when they’re old, white elitists.

The Left is predominantly anti-war, yet Bilderberg was behind many of the world’s major conflicts.

The Left is for eradicating poverty, yet Bilderberg wants to concentrate the world’s wealth and resources to a handful of people.

The Left is for diversity, yet Bilderberg and similar global bodies lack diversity despite steering major world events.

The Left demands open, representative democracy, yet Bilderberg meets in secret behind closed doors without a record of the proceedings.

So why won’t liberals dump the globalists and stand up for the values that supposedly represent the Left?

Please send this article to every leftist you know.

https://www.infowars.com/why-wont-the-left-attack-bilderberg-the-real-1-dominated-by-white-males/

Ivanka Trump’s Worst Week in Washington


Ivanka Trump has long been cast as the one person that her father — aka the President of the United States — really, truly listens to.

So, when she formally joined the White House earlier this year, many people who were deeply concerned about the direction Donald Trump would take the country viewed it as a a major step in the right direction.
But, through the first 134 days of Donald Trump’s presidency, Ivanka has been far more talk than action. And her inability to deliver results came to a head this week as Ivanka failed to convince her father to keep the US in the Paris climate accord.
“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh — not Paris,” Trump thundered in his Rose Garden speech announcing that the US would join Nicaragua and Syria as the only three countries who are not part of the Paris accords.
It was a statement — and a sentiment — right out of the mind of Steve Bannon, chief strategist in the Trump White House and someone with whom Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband, has repeatedly clashed over the first four-plus months of the administration.
Bannon represents a hard-charging, nationalist, populist, anti-establishment view of politics. Ivanka and her husband — “Javanka” for short — are far more liberal and moderate-minded.
Bannon’s views won out on this issue, due in no small part to the fact that Trump promised to get out of Paris during the campaign and felt compelled to make good on that pledge to appease his political base.
For Ivanka, this week serves as a blunt reminder that, despite her considerable influence with her father, she has yet to affect major changes — or even minor ones — in his views since coming to the White House.
On virtually every issue — trade, immigration, healthcare and now climate — Trump has sided with his political base rather than his daughter and her husband. Whether “Javanka” want to admit it or not, that’s embarrassing given the role in the White House
they quite clearly envisioned for themselves.
Publicly, Ivanka’s serenity is unbothered. This comes from a terrific story in Politico:
“Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, have taken the defeat in stride, according to two people familiar with their thinking on the issue. Their view of their roles in the
White House is that they’re playing the long game, helping the President to be successful. And they don’t tally their own influence day by day or bill by bill.”
Riiiiiiiight. Relatedly, I am playing the “long game” on making it to the NBA.
None of this means that Ivanka — or Jared — is going anywhere anytime soon. They aren’t. And, if they do, it will be their choice, not because President Trump pushes them out.
But, what this week disproved — or at least poked holes in — is the notion that Ivanka Trump can get her father to do what she wants when she really sets her mind to it.
Ivanka, for realizing that no one rules Donald Trump but Donald Trump, you had the Worst Week in Washington. Congrats, or something.

World media look to green future without US


_96315835_climategraphic.jpg

Frustration with the US is flowing freely in global media following President Donald Trump’s announcement that his country would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement signed in 2015 by 195 countries.

European newspapers see an opportunity to move forward without the burden of appeasing a reluctant partner in Washington.

And in China, state-run media see their country ascending to a position of global leadership on the issue of climate change.

The announcement also triggered a global conversation on social media, with climate-related hashtags trending worldwide.

_96316280_polish_chinese_gernan.jpg

Europe

Newspapers on the continent generally expressed disappointment at the decision, but saw in it an opportunity for Europe to forge a new path.

French centre-left daily Le Monde said that the decision had “widened the gap of mistrust” and noted that Mr Trump’s mantra of “America First” seems to be leading the country to ever greater isolation.

Similarly, the French financial newspaper Les Echos says America is now part of a “trio of marginalised” nations, along with Syria and Nicaragua, who are not part of the deal. It adds that the move has not “signed the death warrant” of the agreement.

France’s left-wing Libération newspaper took a more personal view of the Mr Trump, saying: “Since his accession to the White House, the US president has believed he is on a reality show. Except for the fact that this is no longer a game, it is about the future of the planet.”

_96315921_parisien_plain.jpg

A commentary in Germany’s centre-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung sees a certain “cold logic” in Mr Trump’s move, in that he appears to prefer to deal with migration with “walls and weapons” rather than action to limit global warming.

“[The US] is reducing its financial contribution to global climate protection while boosting funding for the military and homeland security,” writes its Washington correspondent, Winand von Petersdorff.

Trump ‘shakes global community’

Germany’s conservative Die Welt sees something positive in Trump’s decision, saying it will actually be good for the Paris agreement to lose countries who do not believe in it.

“Those whose take part half-heartedly or even dishonestly are likely to undermine its agenda from the inside,” says a commentary by the paper’s science editor, Norbert Lossau.

A presenter on Russia’s state-controlled Channel One TV said that Mr Trump has “shaken the global community once again”.

And state-owned newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta was more sympathetic to Mr Trump than most, saying he had “stood up against Americans paying for the USA’s ‘climatic leadership’, getting nothing in return, except for sweet-voiced chants of European politicians”.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-40130447

France ‘corrects’ White House video on Paris accord


Foreign ministry releases edited version of White House video that said Paris climate deal was bad for American jobs.

A day after Donald Trump decided to pull the United States out of the Paris climate deal, the French government has cheekily hit back by releasing a pointed fact-check of the US president’s claims about the landmark agreement.

France’s finance ministry posted a tweet with an embedded link to a video that amounted to a wry but very public rebuttal of Trump’s assertions.

On Thursday, the White House had tweeted, “The Paris Accord is a bad deal for Americans,” and linked to a video which said the agreement “undermines” US competitiveness and jobs, was “badly negotiated” by former president Barack Obama and “accomplishes little.”

In its surprise response on Friday, France’s foreign ministry tweeted, “We’ve seen the @WhiteHouse video about the #ParisAccord. We disagree – so we’ve changed it.”

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/france-corrects-white-house-video-paris-accord-170603092451327.html

MIT issues statement regarding research on Paris Agreement


A set of talking points circulated in support of President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement included this statement:

“The [Paris] deal also accomplishes LITTLE for the climate

“According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be negligible. The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius in 2100.”

The researchers in MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change who led the relevant analysis find this statement to be misleading, for two reasons.

First, the 0.2 degree-figure used in the talking point reflects the incremental impact of the Paris Agreement compared with the earlier Copenhagen agreement.  If you instead compare the impact of the Paris Agreement to no climate policy, then the temperature reduction is much larger, on the order of 1 degree Celsius — 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — by 2100. This would be a significant reduction in the global temperature rise, though much more is needed if the world is to achieve its goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less.

Second, the analysis accounts only for countries’ pledges under the Paris Agreement, assuming no further strengthening of the commitments in years after 2030. The Paris Agreement is a milestone of the ongoing UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is committed to ongoing annual meetings to regularly revisit and ratchet up nations’ climate goals, making them more ambitious over time.

The relevant MIT researchers believe that the Paris Agreement is an unprecedented and vital effort by nearly 200 countries to respond to the urgent threat of global climate change.

http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-issues-statement-research-paris-agreement-0602

Trumpexit could be good news for India as PM Narendra Modi meets Emmanuel Macron


modi-

Newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted 24 times within two hours as news, on June 1, came from across the Atlantic. US President Trump declared that he has broken away from the Paris Climate Agreement. That “breaking news” sent …

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/trumpexit-could-be-good-news-for-india-as-pm-narendra-modi-meets-emmanuel-macron/articleshow/58973433.cms

 

Fox News actually acknowledged that climate change is real


dunlap-2016-climate-human-activities

or the past decade, Fox News has been a haven for climate change denialism, shielding viewers from the evidence that humans are causing global temperatures to rise. Perhaps no other news outlet has done as much to harden the view, among conservatives, that global warming is a fiction.

But on Thursday, just a few minutes before President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States would back out of a major international climate agreement, Fox did something startling and utterly off brand.

Viewers tuning in to watch the president’s speech saw anchor Shepard Smith lecturing them that climate change was not, in fact, a hoax:

Climate change is real and our activities do contribute to it.

As the New York Times reports today, scientific studies show if the world’s carbon emissions continue unchecked, atmospheric temperatures will continue to rise. The planet will not just be hotter but also suffer from rising sea levels, more powerful storms, droughts that lead to food shortages and extreme conditions.

Supporters of the accord argue it’s the right thing to do for the environment, and for people — future generations.

On the matter of climate change, Smith has been one of the few dissenting voices at Fox News. In 2014, he stirred up a minor controversy when he declared, on air: “Climate change — it is real. The science is true.”

Trump’s Paris speech Thursday fell squarely in the middle of Smith’s 3 pm show, which gave the anchor a chance to remind his conservative viewers about the scientific consensus on climate change.

Smith’s forceful acknowledgement of the science is startling only in the context of Fox News, a channel that has long been blamed for perpetuating right-wing ignorance of the science on global warming. In 2011, researchers from American, George Mason, and Yale universities found that Fox News programs overwhelmingly rejected or ignored the scientific evidence on climate change, and promoted a false sense of balance by favoring guests who denied the planet was heating up.

“Notably, Fox also provided substantially more coverage on climate change than the other two networks, thereby amplifying doubt about global warming within the cable news landscape,” the researchers write.

People who already doubt climate change are much more likely to watch Fox News, of course, but there’s evidence that Fox News, in turn, has suppressed public recognition of global warming.

Studies have shown that many climate deniers are not incorrigible, but in fact are surprisingly open to new viewpoints. A recent experiment from Yale University researchers Sander van der Linden and Anthony Leiserowitz, and George Mason’s Edward Maibach found that simply telling people “97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused global warming is happening” is enough to increase their confidence that climate change is real.

What’s more, both liberals and conservatives shifted their views equally after learning this fact. Even people who were avid watchers of Fox News became more receptive to the idea of man-made global warming, suggesting that at least some climate skeptics are simply misinformed, not willfully oblivious.

Part of the problem is that the American media has done a bad job of explaining climate science. According to the survey, only a quarter of liberals and only 5 percent of conservatives were aware that more than 90 percent of climate scientists believe climate change is real and that it is caused by people. The widespread “public confusion and doubt about the state of scientific agreement has limited action on global warming for decades,” the researchers argue.

As this issue becomes more and more politicized, one fear is that it will be harder to change people’s minds. Over the past 20 years, Democrats have become more confident that humans are causing global warming, while Republicans have become more skeptical. This reflects, in part, how politicians and pundits have increasingly turned climate skepticism into a matter of political identity.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/2/15727170/fox-news-acknowledged-climate-change-real