Why Is Canada NOT In the Top Ten ? It Ain’t Complicated!

The World Economic Forum 2017/18 Competitiveness Report explains why:

‘The Global Competitiveness Report 2017-18 highlights several more critical challenges facing Canada:

Business R&D remains back of the class, despite decades of government incentives and programmes. Although Ottawa is exploring bolder policy ideas, such as a new programme to co-invest with business in “super-clusters”, the challenge in universities and large companies, especially foreign-owned ones, may be more fundamental.

Canadian universities are not generating enough commercial IP, while multinational corporations have cut their R&D significantly for years.

The overall tax burden remains a shackle on growth and it is tightening. According to the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey, Canada’s business community considers tax rates to be one of the most significant barriers to doing business. Governments, especially at the federal level, continue to downplay the barriers to domestic investment that they’re building through tax regimes.

The survey suggests that Canada’s business community views inefficient government bureaucracy as the single most problematic factor in doing business. This is not an area that any major government is currently addressing in an assertive way.

Government procurement of technology is missing in action, struggling in 68th position. As governments push business and investors to do more, it might be wise to look in the mirror too and have the government lead by example.’

In summary —-my fellow Canadians!

R and D , Innovation, Taxation , Technology , Regulation, Sluggish Universities.

We are 14th . Our largest trading partner —that ugly Trump USA?

Number 2!

Who is number 1?

Switzerland! And they are not a member of the EU!


European Immigration? Trouble!

The vaunted European Union Immigration System is having its problems ;

Just look at Norway( reported by Breitbart) :

‘Norwegian Minister of Labour and Social Affairs Anniken Hauglie has raised alarm bells after a report has revealed that migrants account for half of the welfare beneficiaries in the country.

The report, which comes from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV), claims that not only are a disproportionate number of migrants receiving welfare, but many are living below the poverty line. Minister Hauglie has warned that the poor migrants could be forming an underclass in Norwegian society, Verdens Gang reports.

“The report confirms that one of the main causes of poverty in Norway is immigration. 28.5 per cent of immigrants live in sustained low income,” Hauglie said.

“It’s alarming. The worst thing that can happen is that immigrants and refugees become their own subclass in Norwegian society,” she added.

From 2011 to 2015, the poverty rate in Norway has increased from 7.7 per cent to 9.3 per cent. Immigrants, though they only make up 16.8 per cent of the total population, account for 28.5 per cent of all people considered to be in poverty in the country.

“To reduce poverty in Norway, more immigrants have to work,” Hauglie said. “Without language, it is difficult to get in the Norwegian labour market,” she added and recommended that more emphasis is put on having migrants learn Norwegian and not put them in jobs where they do not have frequent contact with native speakers.’

And then there is Lesbos Island

‘ATHENS (Reuters) – Residents on the Greek island of Lesbos went on strike on Monday to protest against European policies they say have turned it into a “prison” for migrants and refugees.

Islanders shut businesses, shops, municipal offices, nurseries and pharmacies and dozens rallied on a central square, calling on the government to transfer asylum-seekers to the mainland.

“Lesbos is not a place of exile,” a banner read.

Just a few miles from Turkey’s coast, Lesbos has borne the brunt of Europe’s migrant crisis. In 2015, nearly a million people – most fleeing Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan – landed on its shores before heading north, mainly to Germany.

It is now hosting some 8,500 asylum-seekers in facilities designed to hold fewer than 3,000.

“Lesbos is not an open prison, nor will we allow anyone to view it as such,” Mayor Spyros Galinos was quoted as saying by the Athens News Agency.

Thousands of asylum-seekers have become stranded on Lesbos and four other islands close to Turkey since the EU agreed a deal with Ankara in March 2016 to shut down the route through Greece.

Some have been moved to camps on the mainland, but authorities say the terms of the agreement prevent asylum-seekers from traveling beyond the islands.

Rights groups have described conditions in camps across Greece as deplorable and unfit for humans. On Lesbos, violence often breaks out over delays in asylum procedures and poor living standards.

“The message (today) was that we can’t take it any more,” Galinos said. “Lesbos is in a state of emergency.”

Oh! And Austria is feeling the effects and so is Sweden . And we all know about the Netherlands ( who have already abandoned their multi cultural Policy and are now vetting more of their immigrants) and , of course, there is Belgium and France that we all know from the news and crime.

Of course, thousands of migrants are housed in sub standard conditions in Germany, but few talk about that.

I guess there may be some validity to being a little careful about an open ended immigration policy.

The Myth of Indigenous Utopia

The myth of indigenous utopia

Genocide. Ethnic cleansing. Forced assimilation. Slavery. Racism.

By Hymie Rubenstein

November 8, 2017 |

As much as mainstream history and traditional anthropology have shown these five phenomena to be near universal features of the human condition, they are mostly portrayed these days in the ivory tower, government and media as late 15th century European colonizer inventions to subjugate, exploit, or exterminate the indigenous people of the world.

In Canada, this skewed portrait of the five sins of Westernization portrays the pre-contact New World as a veritable Garden of Eden inhabited by a myriad of aboriginal groups mostly living peacefully with each other and in harmony with nature. The indigenous “fall from grace,” if any, was precipitated entirely by the arrival of Europeans.

The de facto Book of Genesis for Canada’s indigenized creation story is the 4,000-page 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RRCAP). The Report does not suggest the country was created in six days, it is silent on serpents and sex, and the Flood only appears as a metaphor for immigration. But – and I mean no disrespect to the authors and believers of the biblical Genesis story – the RRCAP creation story is just as hard to accept.

Among its many evidentiary shortcomings, it privileges unverifiable oral history over well-documented written accounts; makes no mention of periodic pre-contact hunger, starvation, or famine; only fleetingly refers to “violent death and cannibalism” and occasional warfare among the militaristic Iroquois; briefly comments on lethal conflict among the famously warlike Blackfoot; and buries pervasive West coast pre-contact slavery in a one-sentence footnote.

Conversely, the Report deals extensively with similar activities, some now viewed as crimes against humanity, when they were perpetrated by European societies, regardless of their relevance to Canada. This partial and selective story is well on its way to becoming our country’s “official history”. It is increasingly taught in our schools and is constantly regurgitated by prominent members of the Canadian intelligentsia. One of the latest to do so is Niigaan Sinclair, Associate Professor of native studies at the University of Manitoba and son of Senator Murray Sinclair, former chair of the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Although Professor Sinclair is a beneficiary of the modern nation-state, industrialism and the capitalist system, he strongly rejects all three in an essay published by the Globe and Mail earlier this year as part of a multi-part series titled “Walls, Bridges, Homes … a series of essays written in response to the emerging global appetite for a progressive narrative around inclusion and immigration.” The essence of his argument is that the economic, social and political structures of pre-contact aboriginal cultures were not only fundamentally different from but actually superior to those of the European invaders. So superior, in fact, that Sinclair contends they must replace western civilization in order to “save the world”.

Leaving aside the claim of cultural superiority, for the moment, let’s examine the claim of indigenous exceptionalism.

There is no evidence that the aboriginal settlers of the Americas, as full and equal members of the human race, were any different from their pre-modern counterparts all across the globe, including Western Europe, in coping with the severe survival challenges they faced. Although the political evolution of individual groups of humans was highly idiosyncratic, the overall path of humanity starting about 100,000 years ago traversed from loosely structured, scattered, highly mobile family groups to somewhat larger, more organized foraging bands, to larger, more tightly integrated semi-sedentary tribes to moderately centralized chiefdoms and, finally, some 5,000 years ago, to the world’s first six pristine, hierarchical states. The long-term global process (which in no way implies the notion of “progress”) called “general evolution” mainly took place on the back of some combination of slaughter, subjugation, tribute extortion, assimilation, and expulsion meted out against foes.

Not in his ancestral back yard, says Sinclair. In the Globe article, he sarcastically dismisses this cumulative story of thousands of years of human accommodation, adaptation, and change as a Eurocentric fiction based on an “an evolutionary model of human community [that] was invented, starting with the ‘tribe’ or some other savagery and ending with the great [19th century] Westphalian nation-state and notions of sovereignty.”

In every other culture but Sinclair’s, apparently, infanticide was used to control population growth beyond the environmental carrying capacity of stone-age hunters and gatherers; ethnic cleansing was undertaken against alien neighbours when local groups exceeded the demographic sustainability of their territories under simple forms of farming; cannibalism was practiced as a response to hunger or to capture the spiritual power of competitors; wholesale extermination of enemies – genocide – was organized and executed to seize territory or eliminate military threats; and just about any alien group (now called “subalterns” in Marxist postcolonial studies) was subject to enslavement in support of forced labour, sexual exploitation, trade, or status enhancement.

Around the world, groups that excelled at these practices, including the Aztec of Mexico and Inca of Peru, slowly evolved into state-level societies. In the process they typically conquered, exiled, or absorbed their neighbours. Sometimes they butchered them for food, as the Aztecs did to obtain enough protein to survive in the fauna-scarce Valley of Mexico. They also despoiled their habitats through deforestation and species extinctions. Many of their victims, human, plant, and animal, are now known only via the paleontological record.

What we know about the Mesoamericans comes partly from direct documentary evidence, for theirs was a literate society. Admittedly we don’t know a lot about human life in pre-contact Canada because literacy didn’t arrive until the Europeans, and petroglyphs don’t tell us much. The historical record in these parts thus begins with documents like the 18,000-page Jesuit Relations (1632-1673) based on the reports of Roman Catholic missionary priests. While these and other writings were undoubtedly tainted with ethnocentric and evangelical bias, they consistently and comprehensively report that Canada’s original inhabitants demeaned their foes using vicious quasi-racial stereotypes (from coast to coast); mutilated, tortured to death, and cannibalized enemies (prevalent in southern Ontario and Quebec); enslaved members of neighbouring groups (common among West coast tribes); massacred competitors for land and resources (widespread on the Prairies); and exterminated entire ethnic groups (as in the genocidal annihilation of almost all the Huron by the Iroquois in 1649).

In short, contrary to the idyllic picture painted by Professor Sinclair’s essay and the RRCAP, the preponderance of scientific evidence, as opposed to tales told around eons of campfires, indicates Canada’s first immigrants acted just as beastly as the rest of the human family.

Whatever was going on pre-contact, it was remarkably unproductive in terms of population growth, compared to many other regions of the world. The aboriginal settlers had at least 15,000 years to populate the northern half of the continent, but on the eve of European settlement there were no more than 500,000 indigenous people in what is now Canada, or one person per 20 square kilometres. It was a virtual terra nullius by any reasonable definition. To be sure, they faced technological and environmental challenges that limited population growth (although endemic plant and animal food shortages were not among them), but based on the relatively rapid population growth in Europe and elsewhere over the same period, it is reasonable to hypothesize that inter-tribal warfare was more lethal in pre-contact Canada than it was just about anywhere else, including Europe during its darkest ages. In fact, the kill rate likely exceeded – by a huge factor – the number of indigenous people deliberately killed by Europeans.

None of this seems to have occurred to Professor Sinclair. Instead, he recommends the world look to aboriginal history for guidance on how to reduce modern inter-state and inter-cultural violence: “Indigenous nations have answers to nearly every single challenge facing nation-states and leading to such wars today.”

There is no denying that the death of tens of thousands of indigenous people in Canada and millions more elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere because of their susceptibility to infectious Western diseases like influenza, scarlet fever, tuberculosis, smallpox, and measles is a human tragedy of epic proportion, although it’s miniscule compared to the Black Death that killed an estimated 75-200 million people in Eurasia between 1346-1353. And it is outrageous that so many indigenous people died of smallpox contracted from blankets obtained from fur traders in return for animal skins. It’s widely alleged the Europeans deliberately infected their indigenous trading partners, which seems counterintuitive, to say the least. But even if they did, they were petty biological warriors compared to, say, Genghis Khan, who used catapults to toss plague-infested corpses over the walls of castles he besieged.

What Sinclair ignores most of all is that, unlike so many other places in the world, including Western Europe where even the names of most preliterate indigenous groups disappeared millennia ago, the post-contact European treatment of Canada’s original inhabitants involved neither genocide, nor slavery, nor ethnic cleansing, nor total assimilation, nor tribute extraction. On the contrary, though there was an unfortunate and unjustified period of legislated racial segregation for treaty Indians between 1885 and 1951, as well as other small and large injustices from first contact to the present, European settlement starting in 1535 eventually resulted in permanent pacification (the abolition of tribal warfare and the voluntary signing of treaties), the free and lively exchange of aboriginal products for European manufactured goods for 250 years, tens of billions of dollars spent since Confederation in 1867 to enhance the well-being of indigenous peoples, and an Indian Act (1876) and the Constitution Act (1982) – both rooted in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 – which defined, enhanced, and preserved the special rights and privileges of aboriginals (especially their treaty rights).

Warts and all, no country has ever done more for its indigenous people. And Professor Sinclair’s haughty claims to aboriginal moral superiority over European savagery have no foundation in Canadian history.

Mr. Rubinstein is a retired Professor of Anthropology at the University of Manitoba . This article appeared on the C2C Website .

The Limits Of Power—Three Examples

As one suveys the world this moment , one is struck by the very visible limits of power—political power.

Who cannot be interested in the events unfolding in Zimbawai as we witness the disintegration of personal power —as finally someone is saying we have had enough and things must change? The manner in which a resource rich nation has been brought to its knees is frightening . The destruction of property rights and all the institutions necessary for a democratic nation have been abused mercilessly.

Then you have the unfolding of events in Saudi Arabia where a Prince is challenging the status quo of corruption and tribal governance. Whether Democratic institutions will result is a good question. But some movement towards less corruption and rights for all seems in the works. Faced with a ever bellicose Iran ( ironically emboldedened by western powers) the whole balance of power in the volatile Middle East is witnessing a new alignment.

And then there is Germany. A modern westernized, democratic state which is seeing the weakening of Merkel power . Even democracies make big mistakes! Still unable to shake its World War Two past it compensates by embarking on an over the top immigration policy which tries to show just how they have changed only to threaten the rights of their existing citizens and to complicate that with its Faustian bargain with Turkey whose deliberate erosion of liberty is for all to see. Couple this with a foolish energy policy which has seen electricity rates skyrocket( some of the highest in the industrialized world) and produce a class of energy poor people is to witness the fatal faults of political correctness.

Three different countries all now witnessing —-the limits of power!

America’s Indispensable Friends

Mr. Hanson’s insights are always interesting .

America’s Indispensable Friends
November 16, 2017 11:39 am /
By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

As long as the U.S. remains good to weaker but humane states located in dangerous neighborhoods, it will remain great as well.

The world equates American military power with the maintenance of the postwar global order of free commerce, communications, and travel.

Sometimes American power leads to costly, indecisive interventions like those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya that were not able to translate superiority on the battlefield into lasting peace.

But amid the frustrations of American foreign policy, it is forgotten that the United States also plays a critical but more silent role in ensuring the survival of small, at-risk nations. The majority of them are democratic and pro-Western. But they all share the misfortune of living in dangerous neighborhoods full of bullies.

These small nations are a far cry from rogue clients of China and Russia — theocratic Iran, autocratic North Korea, and totalitarian Venezuela — that oppress their own people and threaten their regions.

In the Middle East, there are two places that consistently remain pro-American: the nation of Israel and the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan. Both show a spirit and tenacity that so far have ensured their survival against aggressive and far larger neighbors. Both have few friends other than the United States. And both are anomalies. Israel is surrounded by Islamic neighbors. The ethnic Kurds live in the heart of the Arab Middle East. Quite admirably, the U.S. continues to be a patron of both.

For some 500 years, the Ottoman Empire terrified the Christian Middle East and Mediterranean world. Almost every country in its swath was Islamicized. Two tiny unique places were conquered but not transformed: Armenia and Greece. Both suffered terribly at the hands of the Ottomans and their successors, the early-20th-century Turkish state.

Yet both Armenia and Greece remained Christian and kept their languages and cultures. Today, both are still quite vulnerable to renewed neo-Ottoman Turkish pressures.

America has been a friend to both Armenia and Greece, although their histories with the U.S. were often controversial. In turn, they have sent millions of talented and skilled immigrants to the U.S. The world is a far better place because there are 11 million Greeks who keep the legacy of Hellenism alive. Armenia still remains a Western outpost — the first country to formally adopt Christianity as a state religion, and a nation that has preserved its faith under centuries of cruel foreign persecutions.

Without the United States, there would never have emerged a free and independent Taiwan and South Korea. The former would have been absorbed by communist China in 1949. The latter would have been wiped out in 1950 by Chinese-sponsored North Korea. Today, Taiwan and South Korea are models of international citizenship, democracy, and prosperity. They have given the world singular products and brands, from Foxconn and Quanta Computer to Samsung and Kia.

Given their relatively small areas, Taiwan and South Korea likely would not have survived Chinese bullying or, more recently, North Korean nuclear provocations without strong American support and protection.

Our relationships with all of these vulnerable nations are as much practical as principled. All follow international law. All have sent gifted citizens to the U.S. All are fiercely self-reliant and are reputed to be among the world’s best fighters.

To visit any of these countries is to experience islands of sanity and decency in neighborhoods of violence and madness. Will these unique but vulnerable nations survive?

In the Middle East, age-old enemies are on the move. There is the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism, the specter of a nuclear Iran, and a newly aggressive Turkey.

Kurdistan is threatened variously by Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Iran periodically boasts that it will soon destroy Israel.

Iran’s clients in Lebanon and Syria brag that they can launch thousands of missiles into the Jewish state.

Greece is bankrupt and overrun by hundreds of thousands of immigrants, most of them young, male, and Muslim. Turkey systematically violates Greek national waters and airspace.

South Korea and Taiwan are both threatened by North Korea’s nuclear-tipped missiles. China periodically warns them that they need to make the necessary subservient adjustments in their foreign policy to accommodate a rising China and a supposedly declining America.

America itself is $20 trillion in debt and divided. It has lost global credibility after years of issuing phony red lines and deadlines to various rivals and enemies.

The U.S. military is in sore need of repair and expansion. Much of the country is sick and tired of costly interventions that could not turn battlefield success into stability, much less into lasting strategic advantage.

Yet a country is not just defined by its economic and military strength, its global clout or its powerful allies. It is also judged on how it treats weaker but humane nations. As long as the U.S. remains good to these impressive but vulnerable states, it will remain great as well.

About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a professor of Classics Emeritus at California State University, Fresno, and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services. He is also the Wayne & Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College, where he teaches each fall semester courses in military history and classical culture.

US Tax Cut In Perspective

From The Powerline Website



‘In the 1980s, the Democrats reviled President Reagan’s tax cuts as “trickle-down economics”–a phrase they themselves had invented many years before. But the Reagan tax cuts produced the greatest boom in America’s modern history. The results were so sensational that Reagan carried 49 states when he ran for re-election in 1984.

That shut the Democrats up for a while, but bad ideas never go away forever. The Democrats are now trying to revive their “trickle-down economics” smear. In today’s White House press briefing, an unidentified reporter asked Dr. Kevin Hassett, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, about the tax bills now pending in Congress:

What makes you think trickle-down economics is going to work this time when it hasn’t worked before?

Dr. Hassett answered the question more politely than I would have:

‘So trickle-down economics is something that, I guess, people who criticize the idea that taxes affect the economy will use to characterize approaches like the one that we’re pursuing. But I don’t think the idea that’s celebrated by even the non-partisan staff of the OECD — that if you have lower marginal rates, you get economic growth — is voodoo economics or controversial at all.

And yeah, the fact is that countries around the world have cut their corporate rates and had broad-based reforms, like we’re doing on the individual side, and then seeing economic growth result.

I don’t think there’s anybody who thinks that you’ll get no growth or negative growth for this. Maybe there are a few people. But in every economic model I’ve seen, you get growth — either a lot of growth, or sometimes if it’s a closed economy model, a little growth. But you get positive growth out of this. And that growth will benefit workers, and let’s talk about that.

So, right now, the way a U.S. firm avoids U.S. tax is they locate activity, say, in a country like Ireland instead of here. And so if you build a plant in Ireland, then you can sell the stuff back into the U.S. And when you sell the stuff back into the U.S., then it increases the trade deficit and doesn’t do anything for American workers, but it does increase the demand for Irish workers and drive up their wages.

And so what the President wants to do is cut the rate to 20 percent and build guardrails around the tax code so that people can’t transfer price — everything to Ireland anymore. And if we do that, then the people who benefit will be the workers here in the U.S. who have increased demand for their jobs.’

That’s economics for dummies. But there are a lot of dummies in the White House press corps and the Associated Press. Thus, the AP followed up on the question from today’s briefing in an unusually ill-informed article by Paul Wiseman headlined: “Derided by critics, trickle-down economics gets another try.”

Coincidence? I think not. The White House transcript doesn’t tell us who asked the “trickle down” question. Was it one of Wiseman’s AP colleagues? I don’t know, but Wiseman’s Twitter feed tells us that he is a Democratic Party activist. One way or another, the Democrats have decided to try to revive their “trickle down” smear. Let’s take a brief look at Wiseman’s piece.

Does money roll downhill?

In their drive to cut taxes, President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are betting it does.

Behind their legislation is a theory long popular among conservatives: Slash taxes for corporations and rich people, who will then hire, invest and profit — and cause money to trickle into the pockets of ordinary Americans.

It is certainly true that cutting marginal tax rates for corporations and individuals will increase investment and employment. But no significant Republican describes this as “trickling down,” a phrase invented, as Wiseman later admits, by Democrat Will Rogers.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has found that the House tax plan would deliver an average tax cut of $360 for middle-income taxpayers in 2027. A far more generous bounty would go to the highest-earning 1 percent: An average tax cut of $62,000. For the top 0.1 percent, the gain would average $321,000.

This level of stupidity is enough to make you cry. Obviously, you can’t cut taxes that people aren’t paying. Currently, our tax code is so biased against upper-income taxpayers that they pay the overwhelming majority of income taxes. No developed country collects as much as we do, proportionately, from upper income taxpayers. If you cut income taxes, you will indeed benefit those who are paying them. Democrats somehow consider this to be scandalous.

It is entertaining to see the Associated Press/Democratic Party citing utterly uninformed and long-discredited sources from decades ago in their desperate attempt to stop tax reform:

Over the years, the concept — also known as supply-side economics — has frequently drawn ridicule.

“Voodoo economics” was the derisive term George H.W. Bush applied to it in his failed 1980 bid for the Republican presidential nomination against Ronald Reagan, a supply-side enthusiast.

This is painfully stupid. George Bush lost the 1980 nomination, obviously, and he was proved wrong by the subsequent success of Reagan’s economic policies. George Bush became an advocate for those policies, and he carried 40 states in 1988 when voters expected him to continue them.

The liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith in 1982 likened the trickle-down idea to horse manure: “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”

John Galbraith was a flat-earth economist whose views have been proved wrong on just about every subject. It is remarkable to see the Democrats try to resurrect him in 2017!

In the view of Carl Davis, research director at the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the track record for supply-side economics “is not particularly inspiring.”

Where does the AP go for comment on the economic record of a president who won re-election by carrying 49 states? Of course, to a “left-leaning” organization, which no doubt is funded by a handful of rich liberals who stand to gain from leftist government policies.

How inspiring, to use Davis’s word, is the Reagan economic record? In 1983, US gross domestic product grew by 11.4%, and the following year by 9.3%. In 1985, by 7.4%. These days, the Democrats tell us that the 2% economic growth achieved by Barack Obama’s left-wing economic policies is the best we can do, even though Obama had the advantage of taking office just after a stock market crash and ensuing recession.

The Associated Press goes on and on, trying to discredit the Republicans’ tax reform proposals. But the facts are inescapable. The Democrats’ claim that the Obama administration’s 2% growth rate is the best we can do is ridiculous. Already since President Trump took office, the economy is growing at at 3% rate in anticipation of pro-growth policies coming out of Congress.

What will happen if pro-growth policies are actually enacted and signed into law? The sky is the limit. That is why White House press correspondents and Democratic Party news outlets like the Associated Press are desperately trying to block Republican tax proposals from being enacted into law.’

Now , You May Not Believe This, But It Is True! The White House Answers!

I wrote the White House by e-mail a few weeks back about the Paris Agreement. Here is a response I got yesterday by e-mail from the White House.

Now let me say : I have written Ministers in the former Liberal Government of British Columbia, the Province in Canada in which I reside and pay taxes , and have waited months for a reply and if I got one it it said nothing. And then there were the letters, e-mails for which I did not even get an answer to this day.

In the Canadian Federal Government case I usually got an answer under the Harper Government but it was a number of months later.

And here we have the White House within weeks!

‘The White House, Washington

Dear Brian:

Thank you for taking the time to express your views regarding the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The United States is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, which the Obama Administration signed in April 2016. While the agreement would have a negligible effect on climate change, it would impose unfair burdens on American workers and hurt our Nation’s global competitiveness.

My Administration will continue to keep the air we breathe clean. America has led the world in carbon dioxide reductions even as we have continued to expand our energy production. Since 2005, our country’s energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have declined by an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. The Energy Information Administration projects that emissions will remain below 2005 levels over the next 20 years.

While little would change for our climate under the Paris Agreement, our electricity prices would significantly increase. The Obama Administration’s emissions commitments would require us to shift energy production from affordable, reliable fuels to those that are more costly and less reliable. Moreover, the escalating electricity prices attributable to the agreement would increase the cost of goods and services and put millions of American jobs at risk, particularly those in manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries.

Continued participation in the Paris Agreement would be fundamentally unfair to American taxpayers. It would require the transfer of billions of their hard-earned dollars to other countries through the “Green Climate Fund.” It also would apply emissions-reduction targets and timelines to the United States that do not apply to other countries. In fact, the agreement as negotiated would commit the United States to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, a significant burden for America’s workers and families. Meanwhile, the agreement allows countries such as China to increase their emissions for years to come.

My Administration will continue to participate in international discussions on climate change. We will also pursue technology and innovation that protect the environment, while ensuring access to the affordable, reliable energy that is necessary for a strong and growing economy. Further, my Administration will continue to support the rigorous scientific research that is critical to environmental protection, as well as the honest inquiry and robust debate on which rigorous science depends.

Thank you again for your suggestions. As President, I am confident that together we can both preserve our natural environment for future generations and enhance economic opportunities for all Americans.


Donald Trump’