American Elephants


Trump Talks Tough, Trading Partners Pay Attention by The Elephant's Child

A study from Britain suggests that President Trump’s aggressive statements on trade may actually be influencing some of our trading partners. Critics suggested that Trumps blunt talk on trade fairness would alienate trade partners or even start trade wars. But the Center for Economic Policy Research in London reported that the other 19 G-20 economies steps, like quotas, duties or tariffs on U.S. imports are down by 29% since the first six months of last year, under a different administration.

Trump has ranted in public remarks and even tweets about the global playing field being tilted against U.S. trade. Trump sounds dangerous, and is clear about what is troubling him. Simon Everett, a professor of economics at St. Gallen University in Switzerland, one of the authors of the Global Trade Alert, wrote:

The G20 countries that had hit U.S. interests more often before President Trump was elected are the very G20 countries that have cut back on protectionism the most in 2017,” said . “Why should [they] do that unless they feared being singled out for retaliation?

On another front, the Trump administration has increased its efforts to deport criminal illegal immigrants by getting their home countries to stop blocking the transfers and take them back. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said that working with their partners at the Department of State, they have made significant improvement to cooperation on removals. The number of recalcitrant countries has dropped from 23 in May 2016 to 12 in May 2017, an ICE official said. Sanctuary cities will find that the president means business with them as well.

Recently, US courts have interfered. Last month, courts blocked the administration from deporting more than 1,000 Iraqis with horrific criminal records, claiming they might fact threats back home. ICE and the State Department have the legislative authority to punish countries refusing to take their own people back, by threatening to cut off their visa privileges, for example.We take our right to sovereign independence seriously. They need to understand that.

There’s lots of progress being made, even with some very difficult programs, although it gets no mention in the mainstream media. They’re just too focused on finding Russian connections or contacts to notice. Not that they would mention any accomplishment by the Trump administration anyway. I think we’ve established that they have some rather strange ideas about what the profession of journalism requires.



Here’s the Left’s Bizarre Reaction to Trump’s Poland Speech by The Elephant's Child

John Hinderaker has summed up the leftist view of the President’s speech to the Polish people, with their offending quotations, clearly demonstrating how the left’s boat has slipped it’s moorings, so to speak. They have made it quite clear to anyone who might be interested that they hate and despise Western Civilization. Trump’s superb speech was a spirited defense of the West which to these loonies apparently means “white nationalism.”

Why white? Trump certainly did not allude to race in any way.  I guess Democrats are just too sensitive on their own history of race to the extent that it has become obsessive. Because of their obsession with race, they refuse to recognize the very real threat from violent Islamic jihad, endangering us all in the process.

Short article headlined — “It’s True: Liberals Hate Western Civilization.”

*************************

And if you enjoy reading conservative comment on Leftist excess, as I do, here’s another from Noah Rothman: “Swelling the Enemy’s Ranks

It may be past time to get Western Civ back into the curriculum at all levels.



President Trump Refused to Join the Paris Climate Accord. Here’s Why. by The Elephant's Child

Angela Merkel is furious that President Trump refused to join in the Paris Climate Accord. As Roy Spencer PhD admits, it would make no measurable difference. It is Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christie at the University of Alabama at Huntsville who run the satellites and weather balloons that give us our most accurate measurements of climate around the world. Climate science has been dominated by the assertion that the following 5 general points are indisputable. They range from scientific to economic.

1) global warming is occurring, will continue to occur, and will have dangerous consequences

2) the warming is mostly, if not totally, caused by our CO2 emissions

3) there are no benefits to our CO2 emissions, either direct (biological) or indirect (economic)

4) we can reduce our CO2 emissions to a level that we avoid a substantial amount of the expected damage

5) the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is low enough to make it worthwhile (e.g. mandating much more wind, solar, etc.)

For things like the Paris Climate Agreement to make much sense, Spenser says, all five must be essentially true. There is peer reviewed and published analysis in science and economics which would allow one to contest each of the five claims.

A growing volume of evidence undercuts “consensus” science. Already 285 Scientific Papers published in 2017 support a skeptical position on Climate alarm. They cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob, or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models, or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policy makers and mainstream media.

Climate science is not settled.

Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.

Natural factors such as the Sun (84 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (31 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.

And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

For a list of the papers and links to them, click on this link, and scroll down.

In the United States, despite tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies provided, an EIA report on energy production shows that wind and solar combined provided only 3.2% of U.S. energy in 2016. 90% of 2016 U.S.Energy production was provided by fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro, with rising petroleum and natural gas use while the use of coal has declined.

The mainstream media continues to hype the role of heavily subsidized renewable energy, the reality of energy use continues to be dependent on fossil fuels, nuclear and hydropower energy sources.




%d bloggers like this: