• Video Featuring Greta Thunberg and George Monbiot Details Magical Solution to Climate Crisis: Nature
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/19/video-featuring-greta-thunberg-and-george-monbiot-details-magical-solution-climate
    Jessica Corbett, staff writer

    Youth climate leader Greta Thunberg and writer and environmentalist George Monbiot explain in a short video published Thursday by The Guardian how the world can tackle the human-caused climate crisis by harnessing nature's restorative powers.

    "We are living in the beginning of a mass extinction. Our climate is breaking down. Children like me are giving up their education to protest," says 16-year-old Thunberg. "But we can still fix this—you can still fix this."

    Watch: [https://youtu.be/-Q0xUXo2zEY]

    The short film, produced by Tom Mustill of Gripping Films, was released ahead of the youth-led global climate strike and the United Nations Climate Action Summit—where it will be shown to experts and heads of state, according to The Guardian.

    Monbiot is a Guardian columnist and a leader of the Natural Climate Solutions campaign. Launched in April by activists, experts, and writers, the bold campaign calls for battling climate and ecological breakdown by not only transitioning the world away from fossil fuels to renewable energy but also "drawing carbon dioxide out of the air by protecting and restoring ecosystems."

    In the new video, Monbiot and Thunberg discuss the climate and ecological crises—touching on issues such as melting Arctic ice, declining biodiversity, and deforestation of rainforests—and the scientifically established ways that nature can help.

    "There is a magic machine that sucks carbon out of the air, costs very little, and builds itself. It's called a tree," Monbiot says. "Mangroves, peatbogs, jungles, marshes, seabeds, kelp forests, swamps, coral reefs, they take carbon out of the air and lock it away. Nature is a tool we can use to repair our broken climate."

    As the world endured sweltering temperatures this summer, the journal Science published a study which found that planting billions of trees and restoring forests to capture atmospheric carbon would be the "most effective" strategy for battling the climate emergency.

    While Monbiot lays out the major potential for natural climate solutions in the film, Thunberg points out that "right now, we are ignoring them."

    The pair also highlights the huge disparity between how much taxpayer money governments pour into fossil fuel subsidies compared with nature-based solutions.

    "We need to stop funding things that destroy nature," says Monbiot, "and pay for things that help it."

    "It is that simple," adds Thunberg. "Protect. Restore. Fund."

    GeorgeMonbiot @GeorgeMonbiot
    Launched today: @GretaThunberg presents a beautiful, powerful short film, calling for massive deployment of #NaturalClimateSolutions - essential for preventing climate breakdown. Made by the brilliant @tommustill. Find out more: #naturenow https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/19/greta-thunberg-we-are-ignoring-natural-climate-solutions

    Greta Thunberg: ‘We are ignoring natural climate solutions’
    Film by Swedish activist and Guardian journalist George Monbiot says nature must be used to repair broken climate

    theguardian.com
    7:19 AM - Sep 19, 2019

    Reporting on the video Thursday, The Guardian noted that "global carbon emissions must be halved in the next decade to avoid serious impacts from global heating, but they are still rising. It is therefore near certain that carbon dioxide will have to be removed from the atmosphere, and technology such as burying CO2 underground has not been demonstrated at scale."

    As Shyla Raghav of Conservation International—which helped fund the film—put it: "The fact is, we simply will not succeed in avoiding climate breakdown without nature."

    Preserving nature is incredibly popular across the globe, according to a new poll by the National Geographic Society and Ipsos, which surveyed 12,000 adults in Australia, Brazil, China, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. The majority of respondents said they support a proposal—made famous by biologist E.O. Wilson—to set aside half of the planet as nature to safeguard biodiversity and prevent mass extinction.

    Responding to the significant public support for the Half-Earth plan, National Geographic Society executive vice president and chief scientist Jonathan Baillie concluded, "People want what is scientifically needed for us to have a secure future."
    Video Featuring Greta Thunberg and George Monbiot Details Magical Solution to Climate Crisis: Nature https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/19/video-featuring-greta-thunberg-and-george-monbiot-details-magical-solution-climate Jessica Corbett, staff writer Youth climate leader Greta Thunberg and writer and environmentalist George Monbiot explain in a short video published Thursday by The Guardian how the world can tackle the human-caused climate crisis by harnessing nature's restorative powers. "We are living in the beginning of a mass extinction. Our climate is breaking down. Children like me are giving up their education to protest," says 16-year-old Thunberg. "But we can still fix this—you can still fix this." Watch: [https://youtu.be/-Q0xUXo2zEY] The short film, produced by Tom Mustill of Gripping Films, was released ahead of the youth-led global climate strike and the United Nations Climate Action Summit—where it will be shown to experts and heads of state, according to The Guardian. Monbiot is a Guardian columnist and a leader of the Natural Climate Solutions campaign. Launched in April by activists, experts, and writers, the bold campaign calls for battling climate and ecological breakdown by not only transitioning the world away from fossil fuels to renewable energy but also "drawing carbon dioxide out of the air by protecting and restoring ecosystems." In the new video, Monbiot and Thunberg discuss the climate and ecological crises—touching on issues such as melting Arctic ice, declining biodiversity, and deforestation of rainforests—and the scientifically established ways that nature can help. "There is a magic machine that sucks carbon out of the air, costs very little, and builds itself. It's called a tree," Monbiot says. "Mangroves, peatbogs, jungles, marshes, seabeds, kelp forests, swamps, coral reefs, they take carbon out of the air and lock it away. Nature is a tool we can use to repair our broken climate." As the world endured sweltering temperatures this summer, the journal Science published a study which found that planting billions of trees and restoring forests to capture atmospheric carbon would be the "most effective" strategy for battling the climate emergency. While Monbiot lays out the major potential for natural climate solutions in the film, Thunberg points out that "right now, we are ignoring them." The pair also highlights the huge disparity between how much taxpayer money governments pour into fossil fuel subsidies compared with nature-based solutions. "We need to stop funding things that destroy nature," says Monbiot, "and pay for things that help it." "It is that simple," adds Thunberg. "Protect. Restore. Fund." GeorgeMonbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Launched today: @GretaThunberg presents a beautiful, powerful short film, calling for massive deployment of #NaturalClimateSolutions - essential for preventing climate breakdown. Made by the brilliant @tommustill. Find out more: #naturenow https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/19/greta-thunberg-we-are-ignoring-natural-climate-solutions … Greta Thunberg: ‘We are ignoring natural climate solutions’ Film by Swedish activist and Guardian journalist George Monbiot says nature must be used to repair broken climate theguardian.com 7:19 AM - Sep 19, 2019 Reporting on the video Thursday, The Guardian noted that "global carbon emissions must be halved in the next decade to avoid serious impacts from global heating, but they are still rising. It is therefore near certain that carbon dioxide will have to be removed from the atmosphere, and technology such as burying CO2 underground has not been demonstrated at scale." As Shyla Raghav of Conservation International—which helped fund the film—put it: "The fact is, we simply will not succeed in avoiding climate breakdown without nature." Preserving nature is incredibly popular across the globe, according to a new poll by the National Geographic Society and Ipsos, which surveyed 12,000 adults in Australia, Brazil, China, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. The majority of respondents said they support a proposal—made famous by biologist E.O. Wilson—to set aside half of the planet as nature to safeguard biodiversity and prevent mass extinction. Responding to the significant public support for the Half-Earth plan, National Geographic Society executive vice president and chief scientist Jonathan Baillie concluded, "People want what is scientifically needed for us to have a secure future."
    Video Featuring Greta Thunberg and George Monbiot Details Magical Solution to Climate Crisis: Nature
    "We need to stop funding things that destroy nature and pay for things that help it."
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • So-Called "Limited" Nuclear War Would Actually Be Very Bad and Kill Tens of Millions, Warns New Report
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/17/so-called-limited-nuclear-war-would-actually-be-very-bad-and-kill-tens-millions
    Eoin Higgins, staff writer

    Even a limited nuclear war would be catastrophic and kill millions, a new study finds, despite the belief of the Pentagon that the U.S. military could effectively and safely use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

    The report, which Princeton University's Science and Global Security Lab presents in video form, affirms the position of anti-nuclear war activists that no use of nuclear weapons is sensible—or safe.

    "This terrifying new video shows how just one tactical nuke can trigger a U.S.-Russian war that kills tens of millions," Daryl G. Kimball, the director of the Arms Control Association, said in a tweet. "We urgently need sensible action to reduce and eliminate nuclear risk."

    Reaction to the video of the lab's findings emphasized the importance of the information, especially in a world where the U.S. military is considering using nuclear weapons as part of its conventional war strategy.

    "The whole world needs to see this video," tweeted John Hallam, a campaigner at Australia's People for Nuclear Disarmament.

    Watch the video: [https://youtu.be/2jy3JU-ORpo]

    The lab developed the scenario after the Pentagon published, and shortly thereafter removed, a new draft of the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (pdf) on June 11.

    As Common Dreams reported at the time, the document raised questions from observers and antiwar advocates concerned over the hubris of the Pentagon to assume it could win a nuclear war.

    That document, combined with the scrapping of arms control treaties, led the researchers to develop testing for a scenario wherein the U.S. and Russia engage in a limited conflict.

    The results point to a devastating cost in lives in short order.

    "It is estimated that there would be more than 90 million people dead and injured within the first few hours of the conflict," the site reads.

    The scenario envisions a back and forth between the U.S. and Russia. The conflict begins with Russia striking the border of Germany and Poland in an effort to dissuade NATO aggression—but the reaction from the U.S. is to strike Kaliningrad, Russia's small territory on the Baltic Sea. From there, things get worse as both countries launch ever-increasing barrages of bombs at one another. Within hours, over 34 million people are dead and over 57 million are injured, to say nothing of the ongoing effects from radiation and nuclear winter.

    The study is "based on independent assessments of current U.S. and Russian force postures, nuclear war plans, and nuclear weapons targets," according to the lab.

    "It uses extensive data sets of the nuclear weapons currently deployed, weapon yields, and possible targets for particular weapons, as well as the order of battle estimating which weapons go to which targets in which order in which phase of the war to show the evolution of the nuclear conflict from tactical, to strategic to city-targeting phases," the lab's summary reads.
    So-Called "Limited" Nuclear War Would Actually Be Very Bad and Kill Tens of Millions, Warns New Report https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/17/so-called-limited-nuclear-war-would-actually-be-very-bad-and-kill-tens-millions Eoin Higgins, staff writer Even a limited nuclear war would be catastrophic and kill millions, a new study finds, despite the belief of the Pentagon that the U.S. military could effectively and safely use nuclear weapons in a conflict. The report, which Princeton University's Science and Global Security Lab presents in video form, affirms the position of anti-nuclear war activists that no use of nuclear weapons is sensible—or safe. "This terrifying new video shows how just one tactical nuke can trigger a U.S.-Russian war that kills tens of millions," Daryl G. Kimball, the director of the Arms Control Association, said in a tweet. "We urgently need sensible action to reduce and eliminate nuclear risk." Reaction to the video of the lab's findings emphasized the importance of the information, especially in a world where the U.S. military is considering using nuclear weapons as part of its conventional war strategy. "The whole world needs to see this video," tweeted John Hallam, a campaigner at Australia's People for Nuclear Disarmament. Watch the video: [https://youtu.be/2jy3JU-ORpo] The lab developed the scenario after the Pentagon published, and shortly thereafter removed, a new draft of the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (pdf) on June 11. As Common Dreams reported at the time, the document raised questions from observers and antiwar advocates concerned over the hubris of the Pentagon to assume it could win a nuclear war. That document, combined with the scrapping of arms control treaties, led the researchers to develop testing for a scenario wherein the U.S. and Russia engage in a limited conflict. The results point to a devastating cost in lives in short order. "It is estimated that there would be more than 90 million people dead and injured within the first few hours of the conflict," the site reads. The scenario envisions a back and forth between the U.S. and Russia. The conflict begins with Russia striking the border of Germany and Poland in an effort to dissuade NATO aggression—but the reaction from the U.S. is to strike Kaliningrad, Russia's small territory on the Baltic Sea. From there, things get worse as both countries launch ever-increasing barrages of bombs at one another. Within hours, over 34 million people are dead and over 57 million are injured, to say nothing of the ongoing effects from radiation and nuclear winter. The study is "based on independent assessments of current U.S. and Russian force postures, nuclear war plans, and nuclear weapons targets," according to the lab. "It uses extensive data sets of the nuclear weapons currently deployed, weapon yields, and possible targets for particular weapons, as well as the order of battle estimating which weapons go to which targets in which order in which phase of the war to show the evolution of the nuclear conflict from tactical, to strategic to city-targeting phases," the lab's summary reads.
    So-Called "Limited" Nuclear War Would Actually Be Very Bad and Kill Tens of Millions, Warns New Report
    "We urgently need sensible action to reduce and eliminate nuclear risk."
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • #ReinventingYourself #ReinventingYourselfAfter50 #ReinventingYourselfAfterDivorce #ReinventingYourLife #ParadigmShift #LookingAtLifeWithFreshEyes #LookingAtLifeWithNewEyes #NewEyes #NewWay #NewReligion #NewBelief #NewStrategy #NewDetermination #NewGoals #ANewWayOfLife #Deuteronomy21:12 #Hebrews12:1 #Corinthians6:17 https://youtu.be/Z-FJkhQKUiY
    #ReinventingYourself #ReinventingYourselfAfter50 #ReinventingYourselfAfterDivorce #ReinventingYourLife #ParadigmShift #LookingAtLifeWithFreshEyes #LookingAtLifeWithNewEyes #NewEyes #NewWay #NewReligion #NewBelief #NewStrategy #NewDetermination #NewGoals #ANewWayOfLife #Deuteronomy21:12 #Hebrews12:1 #Corinthians6:17 https://youtu.be/Z-FJkhQKUiY
    How To Reinvent Yourself At Any Age Deuteronomy 21:12 Hebrews 12:1 2nd Corinthians 6:17 YouTube
    1 Check out http://ChristianitatisCuria.com ! DONATE http://www.mindblowingidea.com/Donate.html 1b For Unlimited 4G LTE Internet call 1.888.306.7062 and ment...
    YouTube
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • ELECTIONS 2019
    It is time to look forward to the elections coming up this fall, taking a closer look at the Liberal platform. We have been fooled once, have we learned? The last four years have had it’s many downs being humiliated on the world stage, is the hardest one to swallow. We do have a cuck as the leader of Canada, he does not speak for the working class.
    What will be remembered about Justin will be the scandals, tax hikes, the lies, and we can’t forget the migrant take over of Canada, not what we as Canadians expect from a leader.
    Justin’s legacy will be remembered as a failure in Canadian’s eyes, at least the working class. Liberals have pushed the green deal, importing migrants who will live off the citizens backs, the stoppage of the pipe line, the three major policies which only weakens any country.
    This fall Justin thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes hoping we will keep him in power. I say this because CSIS center for strategic and international studies, has insight on the Trudeau agenda. The three main points, a more dangerous international environment, uncertainty over US Canada relations, and Justin’s campaign strategy.
    We Canadians know how he thinks over the last four years, why would he change? He has been pushing climate change, diversity using migrants to dilute a Christian Canada, and spending our money as if it will never run out. In all three of his points l see a reckless spoilt child.
    https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-foreign-policy-prove-decisive-canadas-2019-election

    The democrats were complaining that there was interference into the US elections in 2016, this has turned out to be not true. Canada however is a different story, there is much evidence of interference by outside parties.
    Elections Canada told Canadian press that now there are 105 complains about third party interference, compared to 12 in 2011.
    Also the number of registered third parties doubled last election from 55 in 2011 to 114 in 2015, we can only guess how many more since then.
    It appears that $6 million was spent targeting 28 ridings, the Tides Foundation funded $1.5 million Tides is connected with the anti-Canadian-oil campaigns.
    With Justin forcing his way into the destruction of life in Canada, this outside influence is an attack on the Conservative Party Campaign.
    https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/05/25/foreign-interests-influencing-canadian-elections/

    The companies who will do the most for Canada are being forced out, seems like the only one who stays are the tar sands in Alberta. However they have a rough road ahead of them, reflecting on the economy of Alberta. Just another one of Justins wins.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-21/the-30-billion-exodus-foreign-oil-firms-are-bailing-on-canada
    ELECTIONS 2019 It is time to look forward to the elections coming up this fall, taking a closer look at the Liberal platform. We have been fooled once, have we learned? The last four years have had it’s many downs being humiliated on the world stage, is the hardest one to swallow. We do have a cuck as the leader of Canada, he does not speak for the working class. What will be remembered about Justin will be the scandals, tax hikes, the lies, and we can’t forget the migrant take over of Canada, not what we as Canadians expect from a leader. Justin’s legacy will be remembered as a failure in Canadian’s eyes, at least the working class. Liberals have pushed the green deal, importing migrants who will live off the citizens backs, the stoppage of the pipe line, the three major policies which only weakens any country. This fall Justin thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes hoping we will keep him in power. I say this because CSIS center for strategic and international studies, has insight on the Trudeau agenda. The three main points, a more dangerous international environment, uncertainty over US Canada relations, and Justin’s campaign strategy. We Canadians know how he thinks over the last four years, why would he change? He has been pushing climate change, diversity using migrants to dilute a Christian Canada, and spending our money as if it will never run out. In all three of his points l see a reckless spoilt child. https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-foreign-policy-prove-decisive-canadas-2019-election The democrats were complaining that there was interference into the US elections in 2016, this has turned out to be not true. Canada however is a different story, there is much evidence of interference by outside parties. Elections Canada told Canadian press that now there are 105 complains about third party interference, compared to 12 in 2011. Also the number of registered third parties doubled last election from 55 in 2011 to 114 in 2015, we can only guess how many more since then. It appears that $6 million was spent targeting 28 ridings, the Tides Foundation funded $1.5 million Tides is connected with the anti-Canadian-oil campaigns. With Justin forcing his way into the destruction of life in Canada, this outside influence is an attack on the Conservative Party Campaign. https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/05/25/foreign-interests-influencing-canadian-elections/ The companies who will do the most for Canada are being forced out, seems like the only one who stays are the tar sands in Alberta. However they have a rough road ahead of them, reflecting on the economy of Alberta. Just another one of Justins wins. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-21/the-30-billion-exodus-foreign-oil-firms-are-bailing-on-canada
    Will Foreign Policy Prove Decisive in Canada’s 2019 Election?
    As Canada heads to the polls for a federal election on October 21, 2019, Canadian foreign policy may become an unusually important factor for voters in deciding the next government. Canada relies on trade for 64 percent of the country’s GDP (2017 data), and about 22 percent of the population was born abroad. Canadians ought to follow international issues as a result, and they do; but as Darrel J. Bricker and Sean Simpson of Ipsos Public Affairs noted in 2016, Canadians, for the most part, pay attention to the world more than they pay attention to Canada’s foreign policy toward that world. This paradox means that in most Canadian elections, foreign policy is not an important factor. Apparent exceptions, such as the 1988 election fight over the issue of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement with the United States, are consistent with this paradox since an international issue (a closer economic relationship with the United States) is interpreted by voters as a domestic one as well (how Canada’s domestic political economy and national sovereignty will be affected by the agreement). What might make 2019 different is the coincidence of three factors: a more dangerous international environment, uncertainty over U.S.-Canadian relations, and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau’s emerging campaign strategy. A More Dangerous World The re-emergence of great power rivalry as the dominant condition in international affairs after more than a quarter century affects Canada’s national security and economic options. Russian aggression against its neighbors led Canada to station armed forces in Europe—to Latvia, as part of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) force—for the first time since it withdrew Canadian troops from Germany in 1994. Canada has also taken command of the NATO mission to train the Iraqi army at a time of rising tension with Iran. Diplomatically, the rules have changed as well. When Canadian foreign minister Chrystia Freeland spoke out in Canada about Saudi Arabia’s treatment of two journalists whose children are Canadian citizens, the Saudi reaction was ferocious: the Saudi ambassador was recalled to Riyadh, Saudi students at Canadian schools ordered home, and Saudi investments canceled. Canada’s arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou as she passed through Vancouver on a flight to Mexico, prompted by a U.S. warrant for her role in violating sanctions on Iran has led China to retaliate against Canadian exports and to arrest Canadians in China as hostages. Many Canadians saw the muted reaction from other countries including the United States as a sign that Canada was confronting a great power alone. Uncertain U.S. Relations U.S. president Donald Trump introduced uncertainty about the future course of U.S.-Canadian relations by proposing the renegotiation or cancellation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). That effectively cast a shadow over 76 percent of Canada’s exports destined for the United States. Trump’s characterization of Trudeau as “dishonest and weak” following the G7 summit hosted by Trudeau in Charlevoix, Quebec in 2018 led Trudeau to avoid drawing attention to himself in subsequent global summits in part to avoid another clash with Trump. Trudeau has also wrestled to reconcile his commitment to combatting climate change and support for the Paris Agreement with Canada’s largest export sector by value, the oil and gas sector, which exports nearly exclusively to the United States; where the Trump administration has rejected the Paris Agreement and is unraveling many of the Obama administration’s climate policy measures. Energy politics affect the Trudeau government’s election campaign principally in terms of domestic policy, not foreign policy. For many Canadians, political debates about adding pipeline capacity within Canada, and Trudeau’s attempt to balance support for the Canadian energy sector with his environmental ambitions, are the focus of voter concern. Trudeau’s Campaign Challenge in 2019 Canadian voters do not expect a prime minister to shape world events in the same way that Americans expect U.S. presidents to do. And most Canadians blame Trump rather than Trudeau for the recent turbulence in U.S.-Canadian relations. For Trudeau, this limits the need to defend his foreign policy record in the 2019 election campaign. Trudeau’s successful visit to the White House on June 20 suggests that in fact, the prime minister might use foreign policy as part of his campaign for reelection. Overlooking past tensions, Trudeau took a conciliatory tone in his approach to Trump. As promised, after the United States lifted “national security” tariffs imposed on Canadian steel and aluminum, Trudeau personally lobbied Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to start the congressional approval process for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that would replace NAFTA. Trudeau also asked for Trump’s help in pressing China for the release of Canadian hostages when Trump meets with Chinese president Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Osaka. Trudeau’s request for a meeting with Xi had already been rebuffed by Beijing, and Trump’s response was to pledge to raise the issue, expressing concern for the hostages and their families back in Canada. None of the Canadian opposition party leaders can match Trudeau’s experience on the world stage, and although he has faced numerous foreign policy setbacks and challenges since taking office in 2015, the prime minister’s experience now sets him apart from his rivals. A dangerous world and an unpredictable leader in the United States, Canada’s most important ally and trading partner, may lead Canadian voters to value experience in foreign affairs more highly than usual in 2019. If so, Trudeau’s odds of reelection may have improved in Washington on June 20. Christopher Sands is a senior associate (non-resident) of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a senior research professor and director of the Center for Canadian Studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). © 2019 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.
    WWW.CSIS.ORG
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Just Ahead of Labor Day, Trump Floats Tax Cut Condemned as 'Pure Giveaway to Wealthy' [Speaking Of Things Creating A TOXIC ENVIRONMENT...AHEM!]
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/30/just-ahead-labor-day-trump-floats-tax-cut-condemned-pure-giveaway-wealthy
    Jake Johnson, staff writer

    With Labor Day less than 72 hours away, President Donald Trump on Friday floated the possibility of handing wealthy investors yet another tax cut—this time by executive fiat—as the wages of most American workers remain stagnant.

    On Twitter, Trump promoted an op-ed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist urging the president to index capital gains to inflation, a move analysts say would primarily benefit the richest Americans.

    "An idea liked by many?" Trump tweeted, linking to Cruz and Norquist's article in Real Clear Markets.

    Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
    An idea liked by many? https://twitter.com/steveforbesceo/status/1167135580372774912

    Steve Forbes ✔ @SteveForbesCEO
    To keep the economy growing, index capital gains. @tedcruz @GroverNorquist https://bit.ly/2NKmJ3s
    7:11 AM - Aug 30, 2019

    The tweet comes just days after Trump told reporters he is worried about being viewed as "elitist" and seemed to suggest he was no longer considering bypassing Congress to index capital gains to inflation, a move analysts and lawmakers say would be illegal.

    As the Washington Post reported Friday, citing an anonymous senior administration official, Trump is considering unilaterally indexing capital gains despite the concerns he has expressed in public.

    According to the Post:

    The White House is still considering a plan to bypass Congress to enact a tax cut on capital gains, according to a senior administration official, although President Trump appeared to rule the idea out last week and expressed concern it could be perceived as "elitist"...

    The capital gains tax cut would let investors who are selling assets, like a stock or a home, use the inflation-adjusted value of their initial purchase when making the sale. The higher initial price would reduce the taxable income from their sale of the asset, reducing the amount they pay in taxes.

    In an analysis last year, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that 86 percent of the benefits of indexing capital gains to inflation would go to the top one percent.

    "The move would be a pure giveaway to wealthy investors," tweeted Slate's Jordan Weissmann.

    Judd Legum, author of the Popular Information newsletter, echoed Weissmann, saying, "Apart from just sending millionaires checks, it's hard to think of a tax cut more targeted to the ultra-rich."

    "Trump's political strategy," Legum added, "is to bad mouth 'coastal elites' and then give the coastal elites all the money."
    Just Ahead of Labor Day, Trump Floats Tax Cut Condemned as 'Pure Giveaway to Wealthy' [Speaking Of Things Creating A TOXIC ENVIRONMENT...AHEM!] https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/30/just-ahead-labor-day-trump-floats-tax-cut-condemned-pure-giveaway-wealthy Jake Johnson, staff writer With Labor Day less than 72 hours away, President Donald Trump on Friday floated the possibility of handing wealthy investors yet another tax cut—this time by executive fiat—as the wages of most American workers remain stagnant. On Twitter, Trump promoted an op-ed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist urging the president to index capital gains to inflation, a move analysts say would primarily benefit the richest Americans. "An idea liked by many?" Trump tweeted, linking to Cruz and Norquist's article in Real Clear Markets. Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump An idea liked by many? https://twitter.com/steveforbesceo/status/1167135580372774912 … Steve Forbes ✔ @SteveForbesCEO To keep the economy growing, index capital gains. @tedcruz @GroverNorquist https://bit.ly/2NKmJ3s 7:11 AM - Aug 30, 2019 The tweet comes just days after Trump told reporters he is worried about being viewed as "elitist" and seemed to suggest he was no longer considering bypassing Congress to index capital gains to inflation, a move analysts and lawmakers say would be illegal. As the Washington Post reported Friday, citing an anonymous senior administration official, Trump is considering unilaterally indexing capital gains despite the concerns he has expressed in public. According to the Post: The White House is still considering a plan to bypass Congress to enact a tax cut on capital gains, according to a senior administration official, although President Trump appeared to rule the idea out last week and expressed concern it could be perceived as "elitist"... The capital gains tax cut would let investors who are selling assets, like a stock or a home, use the inflation-adjusted value of their initial purchase when making the sale. The higher initial price would reduce the taxable income from their sale of the asset, reducing the amount they pay in taxes. In an analysis last year, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that 86 percent of the benefits of indexing capital gains to inflation would go to the top one percent. "The move would be a pure giveaway to wealthy investors," tweeted Slate's Jordan Weissmann. Judd Legum, author of the Popular Information newsletter, echoed Weissmann, saying, "Apart from just sending millionaires checks, it's hard to think of a tax cut more targeted to the ultra-rich." "Trump's political strategy," Legum added, "is to bad mouth 'coastal elites' and then give the coastal elites all the money."
    Just Ahead of Labor Day, Trump Floats Tax Cut Condemned as 'Pure Giveaway to Wealthy'
    "Apart from just sending millionaires checks, it's hard to think of a tax cut more targeted to the ultra-rich."
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • While "The World Is on Fire,' DNC Kills Resolution for Climate Forum
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/24/while-world-fire-dnc-kills-resolution-climate-forum
    Andrea Germanos, staff writer

    Update: The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to strike down a resolution that would have allowed for a multi-candidate climate forum.

    "Tom Perez just killed the #ClimateDebate," the youth-led Sunrise Movement said on its Facebook page, referring to the DNC chair.

    Resolution 4 was seen as a compromise from a resolution calling for a presidential primary climate debate, as groups including Sunrise had demanded. That resolution was voted down Thursday at the San Francisco meeting by the DNC's Resolutions Committee, prompting outrage. Sunrise claimed a "partial victory" when Resolution 4, which would have allowed for a "multi-candidate issue-specific forum with the candidates appearing on the same state, engaging one another in discussion," passed Thursday.

    "We passed a resolution supporting this multi-candidate discussion and party leaders overturned it," said DNC voting member James J. Zogby in a statement Saturday. "The Democratic Party is supposed to be bottom up, not top down."

    Progressive strategist Dante Atkins shared results of Saturday's vote on Twitter, and opined that the decision was a mistake for the party and Perez.

    🕷Dante Atkins🕷 ✔ @DanteAtkins
    Aug 24, 2019
    Replying to @DanteAtkins
    But make no mistake, Perez and the DNC have lost too. This was, in my opinion, a grievous error and a major embarrassment.

    🕷Dante Atkins🕷 ✔ @DanteAtkins
    Final vote: Resolution 4 was defeated 222-137. Roll call will likely be available week after next, so, after labor day.
    4:03 PM - Aug 24, 2019

    The vote was met with sharp criticism from a coalition of environmental and progressive organizations that led a pressure campaign on the DNC to hold a debate singularly-focused on the climate crisis.

    In a joint statement, the coalition—which includes CREDO Action, Sunrise Movement, and Climate Hawks Vote—accused Perez of "undermining the DNC's own system and bypassing the will of the more than half a million grassroots activists, more than 100 DNC members in San Francisco, and most of the Democratic presidential candidates."

    "There are many DNC members from across the country who believe in listening to the grassroots and engaging in a transparent, democratic process," the coalition said. "But Tom Perez made it clear today that he is not one of them."

    "Our entire future is at stake, but Tom Perez just swept aside the climate crisis for someone else to solve," the joint statement continued. "That isn't leadership. That isn't normal order. That isn't what it means to be a Democrat."

    Evan Weber, Sunrise's political director, suggested it was bad political strategy.

    "The Democratic Party needs the energy and motivation of young people to win in 2020," he said. "The energy around this issue has been incredibly clear, yet Tom Perez keeps shooting the party in the foot by rejecting that energy and turning it away."

    "Without hundreds of thousands of people raising their voices, we never would have gotten the town halls on and CNN and MSNBC," Weber's statement continued. "This is the kind of energy we need from young people to win in 2020."

    Earlier: As activists sustain pressure on the DNC Saturday to vote on favor of a climate debate, advocacy group Progressive Democrats of America said that three presidential candidates added their names to an open letter to the committee demanding such a single-focused debate.

    Welcoming the signatures from Tom Steyer, Tulsi Gabbard, and Marianne Williamson, PDA executive director Alan Minsky said, "The Democratic Party needs to show it is ready to respond to the existential climate threat by delivering the American people a televised climate debate."

    Tom Weis, climate advisor to PDA, suggested that if the DNC doesn't vote in favor of a resolution to hold a climate debate—which it has the chance to do on Saturday— it would defy the party's own governing platform.

    "How are Democrats going to mobilize America 'on a scale not seen since World War II' to combat the 'global climate emergency,' as the Democratic Party Platform asserts, if they won't even hold a climate emergency debate?" asked Weis. "The world is on fire and Democrats need to sound the alarm."

    The DNC is currently holding its summer meeting in San Francisco, and, as of this writing, is debating the resolution.

    On Thursday, climate activists were outraged after the organization's Resolutions Committee voted down a resolution that called for a climate-focused debate among 2020 presidential primary candidates.

    Members of the Sunrise Movement interrupted that meeting, shouting, "Which side are you on?"

    Varshini Prakash 🌅 @VarshPrakash
    Watch this. https://twitter.com/evanlweber/status/1165004904785596416

    Evan Weber 🌅🔥 @evanlweber
    “It seems like the base wants this, the candidates want this, the energy is behind this, but then it’s the @DNC leadership is saying ‘no’ and we’re just trying to figure out why.” —@jackieali_3 of @sunrisebayarea @sunrisemvmt #ClimateDebate
    Embedded video: https://twitter.com/evanlweber/status/1165004904785596416
    5:00 PM - Aug 23, 2019

    Sunrise Movement 🌅 ✔ @sunrisemvmt
    Who supports a #ClimateDebate?
    🌎 20 of 23 Democratic presidential candidates
    🌎 Nearly 2/3rds of Democratic voters
    🌎 100+ DNC voting members
    Why won’t @DNC leadership listen?
    Embedded video: https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1164923245369446400
    10:31 AM - Aug 23, 2019

    Sunrise's call is backed by Brianna Westbrook, vice chairwoman of the Arizona Democratic Party. "Our survival is at stake. It's time for the political and media establishment to act like it," Westbrook wrote Friday in a tweet, which pointed to a Sunrise petition to the Democratic National Committee to hold a climate debate

    Brianna Westbrook ✔ @BWestbrookAZ8
    Our survival is at stake.
    It’s time for the political and media establishment to act like it.
    Join me to telling the @DNC: Hold a #ClimateDebate so voters get a chance to see a real debate on the existential threat of our time.
    Sign here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/tell-the-democratic-national-committee-hold-a-climate-debate-2?source=twitter&

    Tell the Democratic National Committee: Hold a climate debate
    For months, people across the country and leading Presidential candidates have been calling for a debate focused on climate change. The DNC just responded by refusing to host a climate debate and...
    actionnetwork.org
    3:23 PM - Aug 23, 2019

    "Without a comprehensive plan regarding addressing the effects of climate change within the next 10 years," voter Tova Wolking of Oakland recently wrote in a letter-to-the-editor, "none of the candidates' other policy plans matter.
    While "The World Is on Fire,' DNC Kills Resolution for Climate Forum https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/24/while-world-fire-dnc-kills-resolution-climate-forum Andrea Germanos, staff writer Update: The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to strike down a resolution that would have allowed for a multi-candidate climate forum. "Tom Perez just killed the #ClimateDebate," the youth-led Sunrise Movement said on its Facebook page, referring to the DNC chair. Resolution 4 was seen as a compromise from a resolution calling for a presidential primary climate debate, as groups including Sunrise had demanded. That resolution was voted down Thursday at the San Francisco meeting by the DNC's Resolutions Committee, prompting outrage. Sunrise claimed a "partial victory" when Resolution 4, which would have allowed for a "multi-candidate issue-specific forum with the candidates appearing on the same state, engaging one another in discussion," passed Thursday. "We passed a resolution supporting this multi-candidate discussion and party leaders overturned it," said DNC voting member James J. Zogby in a statement Saturday. "The Democratic Party is supposed to be bottom up, not top down." Progressive strategist Dante Atkins shared results of Saturday's vote on Twitter, and opined that the decision was a mistake for the party and Perez. 🕷Dante Atkins🕷 ✔ @DanteAtkins Aug 24, 2019 Replying to @DanteAtkins But make no mistake, Perez and the DNC have lost too. This was, in my opinion, a grievous error and a major embarrassment. 🕷Dante Atkins🕷 ✔ @DanteAtkins Final vote: Resolution 4 was defeated 222-137. Roll call will likely be available week after next, so, after labor day. 4:03 PM - Aug 24, 2019 The vote was met with sharp criticism from a coalition of environmental and progressive organizations that led a pressure campaign on the DNC to hold a debate singularly-focused on the climate crisis. In a joint statement, the coalition—which includes CREDO Action, Sunrise Movement, and Climate Hawks Vote—accused Perez of "undermining the DNC's own system and bypassing the will of the more than half a million grassroots activists, more than 100 DNC members in San Francisco, and most of the Democratic presidential candidates." "There are many DNC members from across the country who believe in listening to the grassroots and engaging in a transparent, democratic process," the coalition said. "But Tom Perez made it clear today that he is not one of them." "Our entire future is at stake, but Tom Perez just swept aside the climate crisis for someone else to solve," the joint statement continued. "That isn't leadership. That isn't normal order. That isn't what it means to be a Democrat." Evan Weber, Sunrise's political director, suggested it was bad political strategy. "The Democratic Party needs the energy and motivation of young people to win in 2020," he said. "The energy around this issue has been incredibly clear, yet Tom Perez keeps shooting the party in the foot by rejecting that energy and turning it away." "Without hundreds of thousands of people raising their voices, we never would have gotten the town halls on and CNN and MSNBC," Weber's statement continued. "This is the kind of energy we need from young people to win in 2020." Earlier: As activists sustain pressure on the DNC Saturday to vote on favor of a climate debate, advocacy group Progressive Democrats of America said that three presidential candidates added their names to an open letter to the committee demanding such a single-focused debate. Welcoming the signatures from Tom Steyer, Tulsi Gabbard, and Marianne Williamson, PDA executive director Alan Minsky said, "The Democratic Party needs to show it is ready to respond to the existential climate threat by delivering the American people a televised climate debate." Tom Weis, climate advisor to PDA, suggested that if the DNC doesn't vote in favor of a resolution to hold a climate debate—which it has the chance to do on Saturday— it would defy the party's own governing platform. "How are Democrats going to mobilize America 'on a scale not seen since World War II' to combat the 'global climate emergency,' as the Democratic Party Platform asserts, if they won't even hold a climate emergency debate?" asked Weis. "The world is on fire and Democrats need to sound the alarm." The DNC is currently holding its summer meeting in San Francisco, and, as of this writing, is debating the resolution. On Thursday, climate activists were outraged after the organization's Resolutions Committee voted down a resolution that called for a climate-focused debate among 2020 presidential primary candidates. Members of the Sunrise Movement interrupted that meeting, shouting, "Which side are you on?" Varshini Prakash 🌅 @VarshPrakash Watch this. https://twitter.com/evanlweber/status/1165004904785596416 … Evan Weber 🌅🔥 @evanlweber “It seems like the base wants this, the candidates want this, the energy is behind this, but then it’s the @DNC leadership is saying ‘no’ and we’re just trying to figure out why.” —@jackieali_3 of @sunrisebayarea @sunrisemvmt #ClimateDebate Embedded video: https://twitter.com/evanlweber/status/1165004904785596416 5:00 PM - Aug 23, 2019 Sunrise Movement 🌅 ✔ @sunrisemvmt Who supports a #ClimateDebate? 🌎 20 of 23 Democratic presidential candidates 🌎 Nearly 2/3rds of Democratic voters 🌎 100+ DNC voting members Why won’t @DNC leadership listen? Embedded video: https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1164923245369446400 10:31 AM - Aug 23, 2019 Sunrise's call is backed by Brianna Westbrook, vice chairwoman of the Arizona Democratic Party. "Our survival is at stake. It's time for the political and media establishment to act like it," Westbrook wrote Friday in a tweet, which pointed to a Sunrise petition to the Democratic National Committee to hold a climate debate Brianna Westbrook ✔ @BWestbrookAZ8 Our survival is at stake. It’s time for the political and media establishment to act like it. Join me to telling the @DNC: Hold a #ClimateDebate so voters get a chance to see a real debate on the existential threat of our time. Sign here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/tell-the-democratic-national-committee-hold-a-climate-debate-2?source=twitter& … Tell the Democratic National Committee: Hold a climate debate For months, people across the country and leading Presidential candidates have been calling for a debate focused on climate change. The DNC just responded by refusing to host a climate debate and... actionnetwork.org 3:23 PM - Aug 23, 2019 "Without a comprehensive plan regarding addressing the effects of climate change within the next 10 years," voter Tova Wolking of Oakland recently wrote in a letter-to-the-editor, "none of the candidates' other policy plans matter.
    While "The World Is on Fire,' DNC Kills Resolution for Climate Forum
    Party had been reminded of its platform asserting it will combat the 'global climate emergency'
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Democrats Have A Great Plan On How To Lose To Trump In 2020
    The 2018 Midterms Held Out Promise With The Successes Of The Justice Democrats, But Never Fear The DNC And DCCC Is Hard At Work Orchestrating The 2020 Version Of 2016's "Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory!" [Possible New Democratic Party Slogan?]

    The Center for American Progress Action Fund has spent tens of thousands of dollars on research to come to one of the worst conclusions ever. They want to make Donald Trump’s Twitter addiction and disgusting tweets the centerpiece of the 2020 Presidential campaign. Not only is this a bad strategy, it is completely redundant considering the fact that the media harps on his tweets all day long.
    #rof #trofire #theringoffire #Tweets4Twits #ToughTwittyDems
    https://youtu.be/i-jf11KOoO0
    The Ring Of Fire 8/24/19
    Democrats Have A Great Plan On How To Lose To Trump In 2020 The 2018 Midterms Held Out Promise With The Successes Of The Justice Democrats, But Never Fear The DNC And DCCC Is Hard At Work Orchestrating The 2020 Version Of 2016's "Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory!" [Possible New Democratic Party Slogan?] The Center for American Progress Action Fund has spent tens of thousands of dollars on research to come to one of the worst conclusions ever. They want to make Donald Trump’s Twitter addiction and disgusting tweets the centerpiece of the 2020 Presidential campaign. Not only is this a bad strategy, it is completely redundant considering the fact that the media harps on his tweets all day long. #rof #trofire #theringoffire #Tweets4Twits #ToughTwittyDems https://youtu.be/i-jf11KOoO0 The Ring Of Fire 8/24/19
    Democrats Have A Great Plan On How To Lose To Trump In 2020
    The Center for American Progress Action Fund has spent tens of thousands of dollars on research to come to one of the worst conclusions ever. They want to ma...
    YouTube
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • DUMP CHINA AND THE CHINESE https://tnc.news/2019/08/21/furey-canada-needs-a-china-strategy/
    DUMP CHINA AND THE CHINESE https://tnc.news/2019/08/21/furey-canada-needs-a-china-strategy/
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://www.wnd.com/2019/08/this-is-satanic-limbaugh-explodes-on-new-anti-trump-strategy/
    https://www.wnd.com/2019/08/this-is-satanic-limbaugh-explodes-on-new-anti-trump-strategy/
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Marty Gold: Liberals in Manitoba want to grow by going green
    https://www.therebel.media/marty-gold-manitoba-election-liberal-strategy-green-party-voters
    Marty Gold: Liberals in Manitoba want to grow by going green https://www.therebel.media/marty-gold-manitoba-election-liberal-strategy-green-party-voters
    Marty Gold: Liberals in Manitoba want to grow by going green
    manitoba-election-marty-gold-the-j-platform-liberal-party-progressive-conservative-premier-brian-pallister-writ-dropped-green-voters-liberal-strategy-sheila-gunn-reid-rebel-media
    WWW.THEREBEL.MEDIA
    0 Comments 0 Shares

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

Sponsored

0% INTEREST , NO HIDDEN FEES, NO CREDIT CHECK, 100% APPROVED UP TO $10,000

0% INTEREST , NO HIDDEN FEES, NO CREDIT CHECK, 100% APPROVED UP TO $10,000