G7 leaders agree on $20M wildfire aid package for Amazon countries

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:35 PM PT — Monday, August 26, 2019

A deal struck by international leaders at the G7 summit to develop a $20 million Amazon fund is met with lackluster support from Brazil. Shortly after French President Emmanuel Macron outlined the plan Monday, his Brazilian counterpart accused him of treating the country like a “colony.”
President Jair Bolsonaro, who’s been locked in a public dispute with Macron, said any joint plan about the region’s future should be made by the countries directly affected in order to protect their “sovereignty and natural wealth.”
“Do you think someone helps someone else to not be poor without something in return?” questioned the Brazilian leader. “Why do they have their eye on the Amazon, what do they want there?”
While Bolsonaro did not immediately clarify if he would cooperate with the plan, his environmental minister said the funding is “welcome.” A large amount of that money will go toward firefighting planes and military support on the ground.

French President Emmanuel Macron, right, and Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera attend a joint press conference that focused on climate during the G7 summit Monday, Aug. 26, 2019 in Biarritz. G-7 countries have agreed to an immediate $20 million fund to help Amazon countries fight wildfires. (AP Photo/Francois Mori, Pool)

“We think that we have to protect these real lungs of our world (the Amazon rainforest), and that’s why I’m very happy that we have been able to reach an agreement and go in support of those countries immediately,” stated Chilean President Sebastian Pinera.
While President Trump was unable to make the meeting in person due to a scheduling issue, Macron said the U.S. is completely on board with the Amazon deal.
“We had a discussion with President Trump, a long and very positive one, about the situation in the Amazon,” said Macron. “He shares the objectives that we are following and that have been reflected in this G7 summit initiative, so that is the first point.”
The second part of the agreement calls for a long-term plan for reforestation that would replenish biodiversity in areas destroyed by the fires. If the framework proves successful, the leaders expressed interest in applying it to Africa’s rainforests, which are also under threat from fires.

Firefighters work to put out fires in the Vila Nova Samuel region, along the road to the National Forest of Jacunda, near to the city of Porto Velho, Rondonia state, part of Brazil’s Amazon, Sunday, Aug. 25, 2019. Leaders of the Group of Seven nations said Sunday they were preparing to help Brazil fight the fires burning across the Amazon rainforest and repair the damage even as tens of thousands of soldiers were being deployed to fight the blazes that have caused global alarm. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

Cal Thomas: San Francisco has a new definition of political insanity – (You won't believe this one)

In the summer of 2019, Fox News embarked on an ambitious project to chronicle the toll progressive policies has had on the homeless crisis in four west coast cities: Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Portland, Ore. In each city, we saw a lack of safety, sanitation, and civility. Residents, the homeless and advocates say they've lost faith in their elected officials' ability to solve the issue. Most of the cities have thrown hundreds of millions of dollars at the problem only to watch it get worse. This is what we saw in San Francisco.

San Francisco, a city described in song for its natural beauty, is descending into an abyss of homelessness, the use of sidewalks as toilets and a place you might not want to visit, much less live.
The latest, but surely not the last demonstration of insanity, is San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors' adoption of new “person first” language guidelines meant to “change the public’s perception of criminals.” The words “convicted felon,” “offender,” “convict,” “addict” and “juvenile delinquent” are out. These individuals will henceforth be referred to as a “justice-involved person.” Someone previously called a “criminal” will now be referred to as “a returning resident,” or “a formerly incarcerated person.”
Supervisor Matt Haney told the San Francisco Chronicle the intent is to keep people from being “forever labeled for the worst things that they have done. We want them, ultimately to become contributing citizens, and referring to them as felons is like a scarlet letter that they can never get away from.”
A noble objective, to be sure, but language has — or used to have — a purpose beyond interpersonal communication. Like so much else today, language has now been appropriated to advance political agendas.
The encroachment of euphemisms on common sense is everywhere. Illegal immigrants have become “undocumented workers.” Babies in the womb lose their humanity when they are labeled “fetuses.”
Euphemisms are most used to hide a more accurate description of behavior or status in order to avoid conflict, or not injure someone who might be offended or hurt. It fails to communicate anything meaningful, while claiming to do so. George Orwell called it “Newspeak,” or “doublespeak.”
Too often, euphemisms are used to make bad behavior appear good, or at least tolerable, and to allow one to avoid responsibility and accountability. They are interpreted according to one’s personal wishes. As Humpty Dumpty told Alice in the Lewis Carroll classic: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
The English language once conveyed meaning. Properly written and spoken, it suggested one was educated and capable of conversing in polite company. Today, it is often used to cover up true intentions. Consider how often “racism” is misapplied.
The proper use of language can also be redemptive. That used to be a major goal, along with punishment, of penitentiaries — the word being derived from “penitent,” suggesting the possibility of changing one’s life after admitting wrongdoing and repenting so as not to repeat bad behavior. Is anything “bad” today, or has that also become subjective?
In our muddled language and culture, one dare not suggest anyone has done anything wrong lest negative labels be attached to them. Such labels are unevenly applied. The political left often retains them to attack the right, but should the right seek to use words that accurately describe the conduct or status of another they are condemned as old-fashioned, rigid, judgmental, or worse.
“Wardrobe malfunction,” has been a recent favorite, a euphemism for showing off what were once considered “private” body parts.
If you are unemployed, you are “between jobs” or a “consultant.” “Underserved community” means the politicians aren’t getting all the money they want. A corollary: you are no longer poor, you are “economically disadvantaged.” The list is endless.
Instead of applying euphemisms, San Francisco should be seeing to the homeless ("previously housed individuals"?) and the filthy streets that now require maps so people can avoid stepping in human waste.
Tony Bennett may have left his heart in San Francisco, but the city seems to have lost its mind there too.

'Rude and cranky' Bernie Sanders loses San Francisco restaurant owner's vote: report

The owner of a San Francisco restaurant famous for hosting politicians claimed Sen. Bernie Sanders lost his vote in the 2020 presidential election after the Vermont Democrat was “rude and cranky” to his servers, a report said.
John Konstin, who owns the 111-year-old John’s Grill, told Politico many Democrats dined at his bistro while the Democratic National Committee was in town for a three-day event over the weekend.  Sanders arrived for dinner with about 15 members of his campaign team and was not nice to any of the staff and didn’t want to shake hands or have his picture taken, he added.
“It was all very nice, except for cranky Bernie,” Konstin told Politico. "I think he was just hungry and didn't want to be a politician. He lost my vote."
Sanders’ campaign did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News. Lee Housekeeper, the media contact for John's Grill, told SFGATE.com that it’s uncharacteristic for Konstin to speak ill of his restaurant patrons.
"Bernie had to be in a terrible mood," Housekeeper said. "Anyone in the public eye needs to understand when it's time to order room service."
Konstin told Politico that staff waiting on other Democrats, including one large party with the Secretary of State of California Alex Padilla, Lieutenant Governor of California Eleni Kounalakis, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had a more pleasant experience. He described Pelosi as “pure class.”
John's Grill opened its doors in 1908 and was famously featured in Dashiell Hammett's 1930 noir film "The Maltese Falcon," SFGATE.com reported. The restaurant is popular among politicos and has pictures of politicians who’ve visited the establishment hanging on its wooden walls.
Thirteen presidential candidates attended the DNC meeting in San Francisco over the weekend. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., dined out with her staff at San Francisco’s Ayala restaurant in the Union Square Hotel when she visited the city in June, SFGate.com reported.
"She was absolutely wonderful and came into our kitchen," Ayala General Manager Alexandra Loulias told the website. "So complimentary of our staff. She took individual photos with everyone. Just the nicest lady."

Carol Roth: Barack and Michelle Obama's $15 million house of hypocrisy

Michelle and Barack Obama’s bid to purchase a nearly $15-million dollar property appears to have been accepted. The Martha’s Vineyard estate sits close to a beach, has two guest wings, seven guest rooms, and measures out to be 6,900 square feet. They’ve rented the property over the summer and now seem ready to make it their own.

Former President Obama and the former first lady have reportedly made a bid of approximately $15 million on a home in Martha’s Vineyard. The 7,000 square-foot house comes with 29 acres and would likely be a summer home. The family is known to have spent quite a bit of time on the island over past summers.
Unlike President Trump, who earned his money before taking office, the Obamas have benefited handsomely from their time in the White House. President Obama only earned the standard $400,000 salary when he was in office, but after leaving, he and his wife Michelle acquired a joint book deal worth $65 million, high-priced speaking engagements and a deal with Netflix. Now they are rolling in dough.
As a capitalist, I am all in favor of people making as much money as they want and spending it how they please. However, this lavish new abode is quite a statement in hypocrisy from the former president, who spent his presidency demonizing everyone else's success.
From telling small-business owners they “didn’t build that” to the 2018 speech in which he said, "There’s only so much you can eat. There’s only so big a house you can have. There’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean, it’s enough," the former president has spent his life spreading messages that disparage success.
As many of my Twitter followers have pointed out, he must not believe in the climate change his Democratic peers are pushing. If he did, he would believe his $15 million investment on the small island will be underwater — quite literally — in just over a decade.

Politicians need to stop saying one thing while doing another. Living in a fancy house is admirable, but living in a glass house is contemptible.

The spending is perfectly aligned with the hypocrisy and envy that continues to permeate the Democratic party. Whether it is Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with his multi-million dollar net worth and three homes or Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who earned well into the six-figures teaching at Ivy League institutions, their definition of “too rich” seems to be one dollar more than whatever they happen to be worth at a given point in time.
Therein lies the rub. Too many in Democratic leadership peddle the politics of envy and victimhood to grab power, wealth and success for themselves. They indulge their followers in the lie that someone getting wealthy comes at someone else’s expense. While this is offensive, it is made worse by the fact that they do it specifically for their own gain, making the political class more powerful and the government more bloated all while damaging the concept of the American Dream.
I don’t begrudge the Obamas for getting a nice house — even though they "didn’t build that." But politicians need to stop saying one thing while doing another. Living in a fancy house is admirable, but living in a glass house is contemptible.

2019 Climate Change Cartoons

Liz Peek: Democrats diss young voters on climate change, opening door for a third party candidate

Democrats may have just clobbered their chances of victory in 2020. While all eyes were trained on President Donald Trump’s furious confrontation with China last week, Democrat officials at their party’s convention in San Francisco again voted down a resolution calling for a candidate debate on climate change. That could prove a dire error.
The decision to prevent a climate debate will almost certainly encourage a third-party candidate. And that candidate could sabotage Democrats’ chances of retaking the White House.
Who might it be? It could be former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who ran to highlight climate change but recently withdrew from the Democratic nomination race. Or maybe a billionaire like Tom Steyer or Michael Bloomberg, who both similarly want to press Democrats to focus on global warming. They might not expect to win, but their campaigns could elevate the climate discussion.
Remember that the Green Party put Jill Stein forward in 2016. Though few took Stein’s candidacy seriously, in the end she attracted 1.4 million votes. In the aftermath of the election, some blamed her for Hillary Clinton’s loss, pointing out that in the critical swing states of Michigan and Wisconsin, Trump’s margin of victory was less than the number of votes won by Stein.
Since 2016, the climate issue has taken center stage in Democrats’ platforms, becoming especially important to young voters who are playing a growing role in our elections. A Pew Center survey reports that voters under the age of 53 cast 62.2 million votes in the 2018 midterm elections, more than the 60.1 million recorded by people 53 and older. In the midterm contest, Gen Z and millennials made up 25 percent of the total votes cast; their share will increase in 2020.
Young voters are energized, and especially about global warming. A Harvard Kennedy School survey found climate change to be the third most important issue to voters under 30, behind immigration and the economy.

The decision to prevent a climate debate will almost certainly encourage a third-party candidate. And that candidate could sabotage Democrats’ chances of retaking the White House.

For proof of the importance of young climate enthusiasts, look no further than the Sunrise Movement, an activist group begun only two years ago that has attracted tens of thousands of followers and staged protests in 250 cities around the country. It also takes credit for launching the Green New Deal, which, though widely mocked on the right, has been embraced by nearly every Democratic senator running for 2020.
Sunrise representatives in attendance at the San Francisco convention erupted after the DNC vote to block a climate debate, chanting “Failure of leadership” and “we can’t wait” to protest the complicity of DNC Chair Tom Perez in the decision; many stormed out of the meeting.
Their anger was echoed on social media.
Elizabeth Warren tweeted: “Climate change is an existential threat that threatens (sic) all of us….That’s why we need to have a #ClimateDebate.”
Al Gore chimed in, tweeting: “The Democrats’ decision to sabotage a #ClimateDebate is extremely disappointing. Voters all over the U.S. are demanding we focus on the biggest threat to our nation and humanity’s future and prioritize solving the climate crisis instead of continuing business as usual.”
The hashtag #ClimateDebate trended on twitter in the wake of the vote, with nearly every Democrat hopeful weighing in. Climate warriors Greenpeace participated, tweeting “We just got word that the DNC voted to block a #climatedebate. We can’t begin to tell you how outraged we are… Our political system is failing us, and it’s failing a whole generation of people fighting for a better world.”
Blocking a climate debate was risky for Perez and other Democratic Party officials. They must have known the decision would infuriate young voters, but they also recognized that such a forum could trip up their candidates. They knew that their over-the-top remedies to stem global warming might turn off much-needed independents, guaranteeing Trump’s reelection.
Consider Bernie Sanders’ most recent plan to combat rising emissions, which is projected to cost $16 trillion. In a recent interview, even MSNBC’s liberal Chris Hayes sounded anxious about the scope of Sanders’ proposal, which he described as “really large.” He asked how Sanders would pay for such a mammoth overhaul, which includes “replacing every old diesel school bus, replacing old mobile homes in the country,” in addition to “a federal takeover of the whole thing, that's essentially a Tennessee Valley Authority extension for the whole country…”
In a rambling response, Sanders explained that his program will be paid for with the money the federal government will make producing sustainable energy (though wind and power production still require subsidies), the elimination of “massive” tax breaks now given to fossil fuel companies, the taxes received from the 20 million new “good-paying union jobs” sure to be created, cuts to military spending, and higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy.
Time does not allow a thorough debunking of this proposal, except to note that green activist group Oil Change International estimates the “subsidies” given to oil and coal producers at $20 billion annually, that the taxes that might be collected on 20 million union workers earning $100,000 apiece would be about $340 million, and that a 50 percent hike in the individual income taxes paid by every American would yield only about $1 trillion. In other words, the numbers don’t add up.
Bernie is not alone, of course. Beto O’Rourke has laid out a $5 trillion plan, and Elizabeth Warren has not one but five climate proposals in the hopper. Joe Biden has put forward a plan that only costs $1.7 trillion, earning him a “C+” grade from the liberal scolds at Mother Jones. And let’s not forget the Green New Deal, estimated to cost north of $50 trillion.
Perez and the Democrat machine are in a tight spot. Either allow Sanders and his rivals to alienate moderate voters by pushing programs that cost the moon, or risk providing a platform for a third party “green” candidate who can mobilize young voters.
On the other hand, the debate could prove illuminating. In the MSNBC interview, Bernie starts off admitting, “Well, the first thing is we cannot not afford it.” Bernie is confused and confusing.

Mary Anne Marsh: Biden banking on electability but if he falters Warren hot on his heels in Iowa and NH

Insurance. You have it and hope you never use it. But, just in case, it’s always there.
Joe Biden is insurance for Democrats in 2020. Yes, Biden is the frontrunner in the polls. Yes, many people think Biden will be the nominee. But if Biden doesn’t perform then Democrats will pick another candidate to challenge Donald Trump. In the meantime, Democrats will keep supporting Biden to make sure he’s in the strongest position, if he is the nominee, to take on the president.
So just how strong is Biden? Let’s go to the numbers.
In the latest Fox News Poll, published on Aug. 15, Biden leads the Democratic field with 31 percent. That’s an 11-point lead over Elizabeth Warren, in second place with 20 percent, and third-place Bernie Sanders at 10 percent. At first blush that looks like a strong position for Biden. However, Biden was at 31 percent in the March Fox News Poll … five months ago. Biden had a four-point bump to 35 percent in May, dropped in June to 32 percent, gained one point in July, and then back to 31 percent in August. Steady but hardly the numbers of a strong frontrunner.
Let’s look at the general election matchup with Trump.
Today, Biden beats Trump 50 percent to 38 percent. A 12-point lead looks strong … until you see Biden had a similar lead against Trump in the October 2015 Fox News Poll. Favorability rating? Biden is currently at 50 percent. Yet, it was 56 percent in 2016, 2017 and 2018.
While Biden may seem like a relatively steady frontrunner, when you look under the hood it becomes clear that one group of voters is keeping Biden in first place: African Americans.
In the latest Fox News Poll a staggering 84 percent of African Americans support Biden. Furthermore, 71 percent of nonwhite women support him. The good news for Biden is that African American voters are keeping his support at 50 percent. The bad news? If African Americans change their minds, then the bottom falls out for the former vice president.

In the latest Fox News Poll a staggering 84 percent of African Americans support Biden. If they change their minds, then the bottom falls out for the former vice president.

Biden's campaign is based on the “electability” argument. Democrats badly want to beat Trump and will back anyone who can do it. Today, that candidate is Joe Biden. The problem for Biden is the first two primary contests, Iowa and New Hampshire, have very few African American voters. It is not until South Carolina, the third contest, that African American are a sizable voting block.
If Biden loses either Iowa or New Hampshire, or both, then he may not make it to South Carolina. One or two losses in early February would pierce his argument of electability, costing him the support African American voters ... and the nomination. For example, if Warren won in Iowa and New Hampshire, she could run the table and win the nomination with African American support moving to her.
That scenario may explain why Biden was in Iowa and New Hampshire over the last five days rather than at the Democratic National Committee meeting in San Francisco, where virtually every other presidential candidate appeared. Biden knows he has to win the first two contests, or at least one, to be the nominee.
In the latest Des Moines Register poll conducted in June, the gold standard for Iowa polling, Biden was leading with 24 percent of caucus-goers. Sanders, Warren and Pete Buttigieg were in a dead heat for second with, respectively, 16, 15 and 14 percent. But Warren leads in the second choice and under active consideration categories, key indicators of support in the caucus system. So if Biden, or any other candidate, faltered, then Warren would be the likely beneficiary. In fact, many believe the Massachusetts senator is in an excellent position to capitalize on such a scenario because she has the best organization in Iowa.
In New Hampshire, an August poll conducted by Suffolk University has Biden in the lead with 21 percent, followed by Sanders at 17 percent and Warren with 14 percent. The margin over Sanders and Warren is hardly a comfortable place for Biden. Of course, New Hampshire is also a must-win for Sanders. He won that state's primary by 22 points over Hillary Clinton in 2016, but eventually lost the nomination to her.
If Sanders loses New Hampshire in 2020 it is virtually impossible for him to win the nomination. Once again, Warren leads the second-choice category at 21 percent, and 58 percent of voters said they could change their mind before the Feb. 11 contest.
In Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden is looking over his shoulder at Warren.
In South Carolina, he is African Americans' insurance policy and they are his.
And that means Biden is the Democrats’ insurance policy too … for now.

Trump: We’re not looking for regime change in Iran

President Trump on Monday said the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran and told reporters at the G7 summit in Biarritz, France, that he hopes to see a strong Iran.
Trump’s comments came after a day of tense meetings with his European counterparts about how best to approach Iran and the recent tensions in the region. On Sunday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif made a surprise visit at the summit at the behest of French President Emmanuel Macron. Trump insisted that he knew about Zarif’s appearance but did not meet with him.
“I knew he was coming in and I respected the fact that he was coming in. And we’re looking to make Iran rich again, let them be rich, let them do well, if they want,” Trump said, according to Reuters. “Or they can be poor as can be. And I tell you what, I don’t think it’s acceptable the way they are being forced to live in Iran,”
Trump has said in the past that the U.S. is not interested in a Tehran regime change. He told  Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo  Abe that the U.S. is “looking for no nuclear weapons.”