Rosie O'Donnell came out of her den and saw her shadow... which means 7 more years of President Trump!
https://www.c-span.org/video/? c4351026/c
=========================================
Turn away from the black dress Hollywood hypocrisy, the creepy thought Oprah is running for president and return to the real world and you see Trump knock out Wolff. Meanwhile, Wolff has accomplished his goal - by making money off a gullible large audience that hates Trump and will pay for more unsupported ammunition.(See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another approach? You decide. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Where are we headed vis a vis Iran? What is revealed is the shallowness of Obama's Iran deal.
I thought, all along, Obama intended to make Iran the dominant force in The Middle East. My problem is that I have no reason, other than a sinister one, as to why. (See 3 below.)
And Then Hanson on Palestinians,. (See 3a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is this possible? Why not. You decide. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have just returned from Athens and a board meeting of The GMOA.
While there, I spent time with my dear friend who despises Trump, believes "kneelers" are simply engaged in trying to start a dialogue and disagrees with virtually everything I write in my memos which he states are cult like views/related.
He also believes Mueller will find Trump guilty, because he was in bed with Putin, and when that happens he should be sent to jail. He also agrees, should Hillary be found guilty, they could become cell mates. (See 5 below.)
I accuse my friend of having a chip on his shoulder (because of his understandable past racial history and the role he played as a young protester) and he drinks too much Kool Aid but we always have a good time together, we laugh and always part friends and always will.
I submitted his name to become a board member many years ago and he was quickly accepted as he should have been, based on the personal merits, and because our board needed diversity..
I bring this up because, while I was away, Trump made his now famous inflammatory comment about certain nations who send large numbers of their citizens to our country.
I thought I would make a few comments about how I feel about all of this, and in no particular order.
1) Trump should know better, but apparently has not learned, that in the presence of Democrats, particularly the like of the Durbin ones, he should be very careful about what he says because they will simply gut him.
2) He is the not first president to use foul language but Trump will never get a fair shake from anti- Trumper's and/or the mass media, no matter what, so that is another reason why he should be on his guard.
Johnson was probably one of the foulest mouths to ever sit behind the Oval Office Desk and I play tennis with a former Secret Service Agent who was on the protection detail for Reagan, Bush 41 and the Clinton's. He tells me both Bill and Hillary were a constant stream of vulgarity, Hillary being the worst.
3) Trump has every right to believe our current immigration laws do not serve the interests of our nation. When the industrial age was in gear and human labor was in big demand immigration focused on brawn, heft and as long as the applicants were not diseased they were welcome.
Today, software and technology means we are better served with immigrants who have some qualifications that meet our needs and professional shortages, come as legals and have some familiarity with our language. That is not anti-racial it is simply putting our nation first which we have every right to do. Trump expressed his frustration after the crew of six came to him with their deal which did not meet any of his wishes and this led to his outburst apparently. In essence they tried to pull a fast one it seems and ignored his own proposal. (See 5a and 5b below.)
4) I am not defending the language he used because it was coarse and undercut his efforts and his
are often sui-generis commentary.
5) Most importantly of all, Democrats are interested in immigration that builds their reliable/predictable voter base. They are not putting America first when it comes to immigration. They are more interested in winning elections and skewing the electoral college in their favor.
6) Currently, Democrats are using any DACA deal to hold the country hostage to a debt default.
7) There is nothing wrong with Trump's desire to stop chain immigration or, at least, limit it to the immediate relatives of those who were brought here as children and who have lived as Americans and been productive citizens. Nor is there anything wrong with Trump seeking physical structures to reduce illegal immigration as a quid pro quo for granting some form of "amnesty."
8) The immigration issue is all about politics, it has less to do with morality. Democrats use this wedge issue in the most hypocritical manner.
9) The illegal immigrants perform work American citizens do not want to do for two reasons: it is hard, backbreaking and second, why work for peanuts when you can collect more money from government welfare benefits and not work?
Trump has been consistent about what he believes is a misguided/outdated immigration approach now that we have left the 1800's and are in the 21st century .His problem is two fold: first, the mass media have put "the bad mouth" on him, hate him, want him to fail and he will never get a fair shake from them and second, his own impulsive and abrasive manner of expressing himself feeds his detractors.
That he does so consistently provides further ammunition to those who impugn his motives, thinks he is insane, a racist and politically want to impeach him so they can recapture control over the ability to spend like drunks.
Trump is an interesting study of a successful , coarse, crude man who is more than capable of solving problems, in a logical and realistic manner but then, inexplicably, craps all over himself.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's end with some humor. (See 6 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Trump Proves He’s Sane
The president may have to invite Michael Wolff to attend the second Inauguration.
By Daniel Henninger
By putting it out there that the U.S. president is an “idiot,” a “dope,” “dumb as sh—” and basically insane, Michael Wolff may have ensured the success and continuation of Donald J. Trump’s improbable presidency. That’s right, Michael Wolff, who admitted on “Meet the Press” that “this is 25th Amendment kind of stuff,” did President Trump a favor.
It’s impossible to know which half of Mr. Wolff’s book is more-or-less true and which half is second-level hearsay (similar to many of the Russian collusion stories). So it follows that among those uncertain about what’s fake is Donald Trump. After all, someone did allow Mr. Wolff, a well-known stab-in-the-back specialist, to hang around the White House for six months. A lot of White House courtiers, including the exiled Steve Bannon, seem to have spent most of their working hours the first six months speed-dialing dirt to White House reporters. We all watched the muck leak into the Oval Office.
So if you are Donald Trump, and like any normal person don’t want the world to think you’re cuckoo, what do you do? You prove they are wrong. Which is what Mr. Trump did twice this week with conscious intent in public forums. Both events not only showed the president acting, in his word, “stable,” both also offered a successful model for a post-Bannon, post-Wolff presidency.
People who have a job that requires them to make a living by doing something other than watch Donald Trump in real time most likely didn’t see either of these events. The first was Mr. Trump’s speech Monday to the American Farm Bureau in Nashville, Tenn. The other, which is worth a look if you didn’t see it, was a nearly hour-long session on immigration legislation Mr. Trump held at the White House with about 24 members of Congress, TV cameras rolling and the press taking notes.
That would have been about as noteworthy as a passing cloud if not for the next day’s immigration meeting on the Dreamers and DACA legislation. Mr. Trump presided over this meeting like some previously undiscovered Buddha. He talked but didn’t dominate. He methodically elicited views from Republicans (among them Lindsey Graham, Kevin McCarthy, David Perdue and Carlos Curbelo ) and Democrats (Dick Durbin, Steny Hoyer, Dianne Feinstein ).What struck me most about the farm speech was how relaxed Mr. Trump was. Most Trump speeches to large audiences are generally delivered in a simmering anger, the president gripping both sides of the podium and launching words like grenades at a still-doubting world. Not this one. He was at ease throughout.
Once you realized it wasn’t a brief photo-op before the doors closed, the meeting was sort of weird, with reporters and their notebooks looming over the legislators’ backs, but it was also weirdly impressive. They looked like politicians doing real work, and afterward the White House announced the framework of a deal on the Dreamers.
Contrast this with how Barack Obama invited congressional Republicans and Democrats to a public, televised forum on health-care reform at Blair House in early 2010, listened to a series of GOP policy proposals from serious people such as Lamar Alexander and Tom Coburn, and then smirked it all away as nothing new. It was a setup that poisoned the well.
Or how in 2011 Mr. Obama blew up the deficit-reduction deal Joe Biden had worked out in meetings and dinners with a bipartisan supercommittee. Mr. Obama then descended on the group to lecture it on his demand that they raise taxes on “the wealthy” and corporations. “I will not support any plan that puts all of the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans,” Mr. Obama magisterially intoned. The bipartisan deal collapsed.
The Trump-Republican-Democratic DACA deal, if it succeeds, will be a major bipartisan accomplishment.
But back to the Trump-is-Dr. Strangelove thesis. Mr. Trump himself contributed to the mania with a tweet, days before the Wolff book’s release, about his nuclear button being bigger than Kim Jong Un’s . That tweet put the president’s mental capacity in play, even among supporters, which is not where he should want it to be.
Instead, the Trump immigration negotiation session with Congress is the sort of public presidential face the world should see more of. In fact, that meeting’s productive content is a template for broadening the president’s Twitter account, an underutilized asset.
The morning after the immigration summit, a grudging consensus formed that Mr. Trump had confounded critics of his basic competence. A parallel consensus snorted that this positive moment won’t last.
And maybe it won’t. If this week’s impressive Trump performance gets buried beneath petty feuds, Mr. Wolff’s dumpster diving inside the Bannon-era White House will be seen as prescient and accurate enough.
But if the president running that meeting is the one seen by voters going forward, Mr. Trump should invite Mr. Wolff to the second inauguration.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) A Fresh Approach to North Korea
The U.S. should make Pyongyang an offer it might be able to accept.
By William A. Galston
When it comes to the North Korean nuclear threat, the diplomatic efforts of the past two decades have come to naught and there are no good military options. Yet no one—not the U.S.,not South Korea, not Japan, not China—is willing to acknowledge a nuclear-armed North Korea, one of the most repressive and brutal regimes on the planet, as a permanent fact.
Nor is the drive to bring the regime to heel with ever-tougher sanctions likely to succeed. Because its leaders care little about the well-being of its people and do not depend on public opinion for their survival, sanctions will impose hardships on citizens without yielding either policy shifts or regime change.
And although the U.S. nuclear arsenal will probably deter a North Korean attack against America and its allies, the threat of a preventive first strike lacks credibility and will not induce Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear program.
Many readers who accept these premises will conclude—plausibly—that there is no choice but to accept North Korea as a nuclear power and move to a policy of deterrence. In the end, it may come to that. But there is a potential alternative: The U.S. could explore the possibility that North Korea would be willing to give up its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees it regards as credible.
The success of nuclear diplomacy with North Korea depends on Pyongyang’s true motives for acquiring nuclear weapons, an issue about which the U.S. and China have long disagreed. Chinese experts and officials assert that the North has acquired a nuclear arsenal because the regime perceives a genuine threat from the U.S. and South Korea.
In a Brookings strategy paper, Fu Ying —chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress of China and a former lead participant in the multilateral talks about North Korea’s nuclear program—urges Americans to understand the profound sense of insecurity that pervaded the North Korean leadership after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was for decades the regime’s principal supporter. Beijing’s move to establish full diplomatic relations with Seoul in 1992 intensified Pyongyang’s sense of isolation and probably strengthened its determination to depend on nuclear weapons rather than allies for security.
The view from Washington is very different. Most U.S. experts in and out of government believe North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons reflects aggressive intentions—to push U.S. forces out of South Korea and reunify the peninsula on Pyongyang’s terms. North Korea’s ostensible security concerns, they say, stem from irrational paranoia about U.S. intentions that no concessions could allay. And North Korea’s history of reneging and cheating on interim agreements underscores the difficulty—if not outright futility—of returning once more to diplomacy. If the U.S. interpretation is correct, the only choices are deterrence, which implies acceptance of North Korea as a nuclear-armed state, or a disastrous war.
Nonetheless, we should at least explore the possibility that the Chinese view has merit. This would mean cutting through the complex, multistage process of past efforts and going straight to the heart of the matter with a bold proposal: If North Korea—subject to rigorous international verification—were to surrender its nuclear stockpile, dismantle its nuclear program, and rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the U.S. would agree to sign a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War and establishing an internationally recognized boundary between the two Koreas.
The U.S. would extend formal diplomatic recognition to North Korea, and all parties would agree that reunification could occur only peacefully, by mutual consent. All parties would be free to retain current alliances, such as the defense relationship between the U.S. and South Korea, and to seek new ones.
Negotiations foundered a decade ago on North Korea’s unwillingness to accept adequate verification measures. Since then, its leaders have only hardened their commitment to nuclear weapons. And their definition of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula includes ending our alliance with South Korea and removing the nuclear umbrella that protects American allies in East Asia, conditions that no U.S. administration could accept.
Still, a bold new offer would enjoy widespread support and help restore American leadership throughout the region. If North Korea’s leaders rejected it out of hand, the U.S. would know that its assessment of their intentions had been correct all along, and China would be forced to rethink its stance. Considering the alternatives, we don’t have much to lose.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
|
It is down to a game of chicken.
That’s right. The very complicated and crucially important issue of a nuclear Iran, the future of the nuclear deal with the West and security for the West and Israel have come down to a staring contest. After months of hearing US President Donald Trump threaten to tear up the nuclear deal, Iran has escalated its threats at the US and the West in the past few days. Iran’s atomic energy agency said on Wednesday that re-imposition of sanctions on Iran by the US would violate the nuclear deal and that Tehran would likely respond by increasing its enrichment of uranium. Trump is expected to decide any day now whether to continue suspending US sanctions on Iran’s oil exports as part of the deal which reduced economic pressure on the Islamic Republic in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program. “Iran is ready to increase the speed of its nuclear activities in various areas, especially enrichment, several times more than pre-JCPOA era,” Behrooz Kamalvandi, the deputy chief of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, told Iranian national TV on Wednesday. “If suspension of the sanctions will not be extended, Iran will take the first retaliatory action immediately,” he added. Prior to that, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, had said on Monday that Tehran might reconsider its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) if the US reneged on sanctions relief. The IAEA is responsible for inspecting Iran’s compliance with the deal’s nuclear restrictions. Where do these threats leave things? First, it seems likely that Trump will opt for some kind of middle-of-the-road solution – pushing for sanctions on Iran’s non-nuclear activities which are not part of the deal or kicking the can down the road a few more months for more negotiations in Congress and with Europe. But Iran’s threats expose each side of the Iran nuclear debate in the US and Israel. On one hand, it would seem to be the height of foolishness to see if Iran will follow through with its threat and to get an Iran with a nuclear weapon in the near future when it is currently complying with the deal according to both Israeli and US intelligence. Keeping a watchful eye out for Iranian cheating and being ready to jump on it is far different than blowing up the deal when there is not current evidence of cheating and no plan in place to slow Iran from a sprint to the bomb. On the other hand, Iran’s threat exposes some of the deal’s shallowness. If Iran can so quickly kick the IAEA out and immediately start enriching uranium at a faster and higher rate of enrichment than pre-deal, what safety has the deal bought? Don’t Iran’s threats prove the deal’s critics point that the sunset clause, permitting Iran to continue experiments with advanced centrifuges and having Iran disassemble instead of destroy its thousands of centrifuges, means that Iran will be able to walk-out to a nuclear weapon at the end of the deal? And even as Trump’s threats escalated about the deal, Iran has not reduced its adventurous behavior in the Middle East one iota. A number of top Israeli and US intelligence officials have told The Jerusalem Post that the US must maneuver Europe and its allies into sanctioning Iran’s Middle East terror and its ballistic missile tests, and then, when the deal is close to winding down, rally global support for extending its nuclear restrictions. It is unclear if that will resolve the potential Iranian nuclear threat, but Iran’s threats seem to confirm that either exiting the deal now or leaving the deal as is leaves Iran with most of the cards. 3a) The faded Palestinian issue President Trump set off another Twitter firestorm last week when he hinted that he may be considering cutting off hundreds of millions of dollars in annual U.S. aid to the Palestinians. Mr. Trump was angered over Palestinian unwillingness to engage in peace talks with Israel after the Trump administration announced the move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
Given that the U.S. channels its Palestinian aid through third-party United Nations organizations, it’s unclear how
much money Mr. Trump is talking about it. But in total it may exceed $700 million per year, according to reports.
A decade ago, the U.S. row with the Palestinian Authority would have been major news. But not now.
Why?
The entire Middle East has radically changed — and along with it the role and image of the Palestinians.
First, the U.S. is now one of the largest producers of fossil-fuel energy in the world. America is immune from the
sort of Arab oil embargo that in 1973-74 paralyzed the U.S. economy as punishment for American support of Israel. Even Israel, thanks to new offshore oil and natural gas discoveries, is self-sufficient in energy and immune from Arab cutoffs.
Second, the Middle East is split into all sorts of factions. Iran seeks to spread radical Shiite theocracy throughout
Iraq and Syria and into the Persian Gulf states — and is the greatest supporter of Palestinian armed resistance.
The so-called “moderate” Sunni autocracies despise Iran. Understandably, most Arab countries fear the specter of
a nuclear Iran far more than they do the reality of a democratic and nuclear Israel.
A third player — radical Islamic terrorism — has turned against the Arab status quo as well as the West. Because
Palestinian organizations such as Hamas had flirted with Iran and its appendages (such as the terrorists of Hezbollah), they have become less useful to the Arab establishment. The terrorist blood lettings perpetrated by groups such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda have discredited terror as a legitimate means to an end in the eyes of the Arab world, despite previous support for Palestinian terrorists.
Third, the world itself may have passed the Palestinian issue by.Israel was founded in 1948. Palestinian rhetoric that
they would push the Jews into the sea is by now stale. There have been seven decades of failed intifadas and suicide bombing campaigns, along with full-scale Arab-Israeli wars.
Equally futile were endless “peace processes,” “peace initiatives,” “road maps” and “multiparty talks,” plus Middle
East “conferences,” “summits” and “memoranda” all over the world, from Madrid and Oslo to Camp David.
In the meantime, most other “refugees” the world over have long ago moved on. Around the time Israel was
created, some 13 million German speakers were ethnically cleansed from East Prussia and Eastern Europe. The word “Prussia” no longer exists as a geographical or national label.
Seven decades later, the grandchildren of refugees do not replay World War II. “Prussians” do not talk about
reclaiming their ancestral homelands in present-day Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. German-speaking youth do not demand a “right of return” to their grandparents’ homes to the east.
Fourth, the Palestinians have never been able to craft a successful, transparent, consensual government. After 30
years of waiting, the world has mostly given up on their rhetoric of self-government and reform on the West Bank. Since the Palestinian proclamation of independence in 1988, there have been only two “presidents”: Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. Neither has allowed open and transparent elections. A Palestinian president gets power by seizing it. He loses it only by dying in office. Over the same period, Israel has elected seven different prime ministers from a variety of political parties.
The Palestinian political party Fatah is engaged in a deadly rivalry with the terrorist-inspired Hamas organization
that has run Gaza for over a decade. The beef is not over democracy, but over which faction will bury the other. The Palestinians’ inability to rule the West Bank in constitutional fashion is why hundreds of thousands of expatriate Palestinians voice their solidarity from a safe distance while living in North America or Europe. More than a million Palestinians prefer to stay put in Israel. They are convinced that they will have more security, freedom and prosperity in a democratic state than under dictatorial Palestinian rule a few miles away.
Mr. Trump may be rash and unfamiliar with the stagnant Middle East peace process, but his political instincts are
probably correct. Polls show that less than 20 percent of Americans support the Palestinian cause. Many U.S. citizens are tired of subsidizing those who claim that they do not like their benefactors in the United States.
It finally may be time for the Palestinian factions to fund their own causes and go their own ways.
Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is the author of
“The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won” (Basic Books).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)Body language experts were hired by the University of Georgia to examine Alabama's quarterback Jaln Hurts? They examined ever photo and inch of the film of past games. Then assess every movement he has made in past games. They could tell by his body languages (face, mouth, arms, legs, head) what he was going to do next, they knew weather it was designed to be a run or pass play, inside or outside, where the designed play was off right guard or left tackle. I think they even knew what the next play was going to be, a pass or run, and who it was going to be thrown to or handed to They had nothing on the second string quarterback. He hadn't played enough to get any info on. They never thought anyone other than Hurts would be playing against them?
Second half it was a regular (fair and normal) football game?
Read more at http://trumptrainnews.com/articles/court-orders-comey-memos-to-be
-released
A federal judge has ruled the FBI must turn over memos written by former FBI Director James Comey about a meeting with President Trump. The decision comes as a result of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, which has been seeking the documents for months. The FBI has been ordered to turn over the documents by January 18, which is next
week.
"The court, in seeking to review the documents, shows it doesn’t trust the FBI or
Justice Department’s representations about the infamous Comey memos. We hope
now that Americans are one step closer to knowing the facts about these memos,
which were written and leaked for pernicious purposes to target a sitting president
with a criminal investigation," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a
statement. "It’s high time they begin to see the light of day. We’re glad the court
followed up on our specific suggestion that it review the documents directly."
Department of Justice attorneys, who are defending the FBI in the lawsuit, asked
the court for the case to be dismissed. That request has been denied and Comey's
memos must be turned over for review.
5a)
Trump's s-hole comment long overdue...but not enough
Of course, President Donald Trump is right about Haiti, El Salvador, and many African countries being s-holes. Only
a fool, a lifelong shut-in, or an ideologue would deny it. Trump needs to affirm what he said, and expand his remarks,
without revision. No apologies for truth-telling this time.
Whether intentional or serendipitously, the president has finally uttered the most monumental truth of the modern era.
The globe has an abundance of hellholes, euphemistically labeled "third-world," containing unimaginable
wretchedness, largely of those countries' occupants' own makings.
Or, to put it otherwise, the local populations have had the means and wherewithal to fix their abject plights but were
lacking in willpower or rational acuity. Most have inherited formidable opportunities but squandered them all in their
infatuation with corrupt elite leaders.
The list of countries inheriting bountiful resources, both natural, and human capital along with effective governance
models is led by Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Frittering it away is a post-colonial art form, actually a pernicious disease
infecting most of sub-Sahara Africa and Central and South America.
Nations finally freed from "colonial European white oppression" – despite being given all the tools to develop
economic independence; political stability; sustainable resource development; enlightened parliamentary democratic
governance; and efficient and useful bureaucracies to perpetuate safe, secure, industrious, self-sufficient lifestyles
with access to clean water, hospitals, and education, not to mention a literate and educated electorate – couldn't find
failure fast enough.
Poverty, genocide, disease, foul water, illiteracy – ravages from Marxist collectivist tyranny or just brutal, corrupt
dictatorships – are the norm. Yes, they are s-holes, not just a figure of speech.
The Great Fallacy that opposes Trump's S-Hole Truth is the multicultural claim that Western civilization is a racist
white supremacy construct, possessing no superior cultural attributes, be it language, science, governance, or
economics.
The Great Fallacy insists that there is no Western civilization exceptionalism.
The Great Fallacy demands that we disembowel Western civilization and instead venerate all non-white, post-colonial
cultures, all of which presumably possess equally powerful constructs that are economically, politically, and morally
equivalent, if not ascendant.
The Great Fallacy, multiculturalism, is BS.
The truth that shall not be whispered is the obvious and indelible evidence proving that those cultures that deny a
republican or parliamentary democratic form of government deny fundamental liberties, foreclose private property,
disable constitutional law frameworks, shackle free markets, and criminalize capitalism soon enough descend into
anarchy, endless tribal warfare, genocide, and poverty.
If the s-holes of the world want to reverse the humiliation of failed state shaming, then heal thyselves. Make liars of
us defenders of the Western canon by showing multicultural forms of nation-building and nationhood are viable,
healthy, and sustainable.
And while we are waiting...and waiting interminably...for multicultural deliverance to make hellholes habitable,
Donald Trump is right to ask: why should we soil, foul, and frustrate our own struggles in Making America Great
Again with the open invitation for failed states to plant their failed cultures and wretchedness here?
5b) Trump was right...literally
When President Trump asked why the U.S. should accept immigrants from third-world nations he allegedly
characterized as "s-holes," liberals (and some neo-conservatives) howled with outrage, branding the president a bigot
and a racist.
But...was Mr. Trump right? Perhaps far more than his opponents would like to admit. Don't take my word for it –
take the word of the liberal, globalist United Nations, which celebrated its annual "World Toilet Day" and named its "
Toilet Heroes" last November 19.
Here are a few interesting statistics, straight from the U.N.:
- Around 60% of the global population – 4.5 billion people – have either no toilet at home or one that doesn't safely manage excreta. -862 million people worldwide still practice open defecation
- 1.8 billion people use an unimproved source of drinking water with no protection against contamination from
[feces].
- Globally, 80% of the wastewater generated by society flows back into the ecosystem without being treated or reused. - Only 39% of the global population (2.9 billion people) use a safely[] managed sanitation service [–] that is, excreta safely disposed of in situ or treated off-site. - Combined with safe water and good hygiene, improved sanitation could prevent around 842,000 deaths each year.
Wow! Sixty percent of the world's population has no effective toilet in the home? And we expect that these people
are going to emigrate to the U.S. and become rocket scientists and nuclear engineers? Lots of luck with that.
"Open defecation" is, apparently, a pretty big problem in the third world – particularly in India. The liberal
Washington Post, which excoriated Trump for his comments, reported on this last fall.
How about the places President Trump cited – Africa, Haiti, and Norway? According to the World Bank, open
defecation is practiced by 55% of the population of Benin, 76% of the population of Eritrea, 42% of Liberia, and 44%
of Madagascar. In Niger (where four U.S. troops died last fall), 71% defecate openly. Nineteen percent of the
population of Haiti still practices open defecation, down from 38% in 2000.
And Norway? Zero percent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5a) Whispering in the Library......
|
