News Burst: June 02, 2017

"The Paris Convention is a treaty. Under the Constitution, a treaty does not become law binding on the United States unless the president submits it to the Senate, obtains two-thirds approval there, and then ratifies the treaty. Contrary to popular belief, the Senate does not ratify treaties; the president does the ratifying, but only if the Senate has consented. That never happened to the climate agreement. It never had a chance of happening. In this instance, as in others, President Obama conspired with his fellow transnational progressives to defeat the Constitution he had sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. He waited until late 2016, the eleventh hour of his presidency, to sign the agreement. As with the Iran deal, he had no intention of submitting it to the Senate, because there was no way it would be approved there. Because the pact would have punished American companies and workers, Obama knew that pushing Democratic senators into a vote, and boxing Hillary Clinton into a high-profile campaign debate, would have been a body blow to his party’s hopes of retaking the Senate and winning the White House. The Left’s objective was to impose the Paris agreement without making Democratic office-seekers accountable for it. That is exactly what the Constitution is designed to prevent."

Jeremy Meyer

Why do we keep listening to Clinton? She lost and she's a sore loser but we shouldn't be giving her attention

Joseph Noll

@Jeremy Meyer...Because you want to be one of the last generations of humans who get to live on Earth? Why would you be happy that the USA has pulled out of an agreement that is comprised of VOLUNTARY goals, each set by countries themselves? Why pull out of this agreement? Why not just change the voluntary goals. It makes no sense.

To Scottlvl73, you couldn't be more wrong. Scientists around the world believe overwhelmingly that climate change is accelerated by humans. Science is not a religion; the whole idea of science is finding the truth of the world and beyond, and that regularly involves finding out you were wrong, and changing positions. Intellectuals of the world ARE scrambling.

Colin, I just spent my morning constitutional reading about Operation Paul Bunyan. I'd never heard of this incident before and given your North Korea video + videos about lesser-known, super-interesting spots in American history, I thought this incident might be up your alley. Keep up the great work, man!

Jeremy Echols

Huge welfare state + open borders + no law enforcement + ??? = Utopia!

Jeremy Meyer

People think terror's bad now? Wait until Turkey floods the EU with "refugees"...

Jeremy Meyer

It's such a superficial thing, but Trump leaving the Paris conjob made me very happy.

Jeremy Meyer

Re: Trump's severed head, the internet is learning that the war of escalation can't be won.

Jeremy Meyer

I'm not sure why label Sanders as a "socialist". I see many reasons why his ideas are actually possible here in the US. But that's a debate that would require a long conversation and Colin would certainly prove me wrong :)

Lucas Gremista

The problem with dealing with global warming is not an immediate or flashy problem. The human race has historical had issues with slow moving problems with dire consequences. Its much easier to publicly address and condemn a terror attack than it is the warming climate.

Matthew Kohlman

I'm not completely sold on global warming. I've not done enough research myself to rebuke it, but I think if it was actually as bad as everyone says it is, the world would stop until there was an answer. All the intellectuals would be scrambling to figure it out. Isn't all the data based on computer models from the 70's that are notoriously hard to reproduce? Before that wasn't everyone saying there was global cooling? I think partially the reason I'm not sure is the way the science community acts like anyone with a different opinion is completely discredited without even discussing it a la Obama's "We don't have time for a meeting with the 'Flat Earth Society' comment. Science has become the new religion and no one in the community dares to question the new bible. I always thought Scientists were supposed to question the status quo not blindly follow. I do believe the climate changes, but whether it is man made or not I don't know.

I want to frame this: "Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton spent more money than any presidential campaign in history, lost to the most unpopular, easily beatable presidential campaign in recent American history (if not literally all of American history), almost got beaten in the primary by a 70-something year old socialist from Vermont, got away scott-free from a classified documents scandal that would have landed you or me in federal prison, and had perhaps one of the greatest “all-star team” of politicos, wonks, and experts ever assembled in her corner, including her politically brilliant husband who no one listened to for some reason. She needs to go away."

Ryan Berry

Thanks as always for the insightful, witty and erudite summation of the news of the day! As for ideas for additional Patreon tiers - I'd love the opportunity to sign up to a tier which gave us the opportunity to Skype (ideally one on one but if you preferred not to then in a group would be the next best option). Debating and discussing in text form is fun but doing so "in person"/vocally is so much better!

Paul Joyce

During the primary, the more Hillary talked the more her popularity went down. That's quite a feat. Trump has managed to divide and anoy so many die hard republican that they have turn their back on the party during the presidential campaign, as we speak their his so many story coming out of Trump supporters having buyers remorses. Not only did he managed to reduce the US popularity around the world, he his destroying the republican party. Now some would argue he's actually revealing the party's true colours. Regarless of that last statement the Dems have the high ground to win in 2018 and for the rest of time, but unfortunately we saw how corrupt they are (cheated Bernie) and they have no intention to win. They prefer loosing from a republican than having a progressive win. Seems like the time is ripe for a third party. Congrats Colin for your state (CA) to have passed a single payer Medicare for all bill this today, small step but good one. I know, I know you don't believe in universal health care. You'll understand one day.

GrisWold Diablo

Great news burst as always Colin. All my friends tell me House of Cards is an epic show. Which is confusing seeing as there are rumors about it being canceled. Ether way it's on my to watch list. I've read a few of the stories before just not the Philippines story. It does seem strange that it was also a robbery. It could of been regular thugs that are using ISIS as a scape goat. The Kathy Griffin story is a surprise. Most people that are in showbiz lately seem to have lost their minds when it involves Trump, but I can't believe she went and posted a thing like that. To me, it looks like a bad ISIS recruiting propaganda. And unless they have supreme hate for Trump, no one thinks it's funny. No surprise with Clinton. Every time I see her open her mouth she blames others for her own stupidity. Sometimes she takes the blame... but then ruins it when she says stuff accusing the Russians... or Comey.... They may have some part to play, but in the end it's her. And finally the Paris Agreement. I'm all about trying to halt global warming since it's definitely humans fault for damaging the earth climate. Some people who think it doesn't exist are in denial. As Professor Farnsworth once said, "What's this layer of Ozone? That was never there before." (Futurama joke) I really don't care one way or the other on the Agreement due to my lack of knowledge but in the end there needs to be a global effort to slow its process. My father was hearing stuff about the polar ice cap freezing again instead of melting but he believes anything he reads on Facebook. Anyways it'll be tough to get world powers such as China and Russia to help keep the ozone intact. Anyways keep up the good work Colin! Your takes are informative as always.

John Barton

There's an argument to be made there, but what of all of the data that suggests it's happening far too rapidly, that it correlates with the rise and sustenance of industry, and that the results could be catastrophic for our civilization?

Colin Moriarty

Sorry.......... Copy pasta. But it has decent input along with a bias *coughs*.

The Paris Agreement is bunk and ought to be ignored, even if one assumes human CO2 emissions are driving climate change. The Paris Agreement hopes to reduce CO2 output. So what are the goals and projections? “…the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 ˚C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030, and also notes that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required than those associated with the intended nationally determined contributions in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ˚C above pre-industrial levels by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes…” page 3 PARIS AGREEMENT The latest numbers for CO2 emissions I have are from 2014, at 35.7 gigatons Page 30 & 31 Trends in Gloabal CO2 emissions 2015 report Emissions have increased from 22.6 gigatons in 1990 to 35.7 gigatons in 2014. Here is temperature data for that same time period Note between 2001 and 2014 when annual CO2 output increased by nearly 10 gigatons the temperature rise is almost flat. In other words, according to their own metrics, their plan is going to fail and will require further effort (spending) But if we simply maintain our current CO2 output, we’re good. So what's driving worldwide CO2 emissions increase? What does this agreement actually do? See figure 2.2 on page 13 Since 1990 all the major contributors to CO2 output are nearly flat, except China. Even India shows only modest increase. In fact China accounts for half of the worldwide CO2 increase since 2001, 5 gigatons. Note that Chinas 10.6 gigaton annual CO2 output far exceeds even their "per capita" allotment and accounts for over 25% of worldwide CO2 output. The Paris Agreement does nothing to address this, in fact China is going to continue to increase CO2 output until 2030 Why would anybody agree to this? It’s insanity! If CO2 output is actually going to ruin the earth, why would we allow the highest and fastest growing contributor of CO2 to continue to increase output? And it isn’t because China is developing country; no other region or country is increasing their CO2 output at anywhere close to the rate China has over the last 15 years. India for example releases about a quarter of the CO2 as China. The Paris Agreement sets out to put the entire world at a disadvantage to China, little wonder China seeks to be a “leader” in climate change. We have the goddamn documents!

Climate change has been happening since earth has been here, Mother Nature and it's creatures will adapt to climate, listening to a researching the only ones really benefiting from crying climate change are scientist with grant money.

Hose A Contra Razz

A couple of people began spoiling it for me (which pisses me off), so I decided to act.

Colin Moriarty

Really want to start the new season of HoC but I'm saving it for after finals. So hard to stay away though.

Nicholas Swanson