Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Friday, June 9, 2017

Most Brilliant Take On Comey's Testimony By Far: "The Predator-In-Chief"



donald-trump.jpg
The Predator-In-Chief
Nicole Serratore has written for Friday’s New York Times what is probably the most acute and disturbing assessment of former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Thursday regarding his interactions with Donald Trump, and it is a take I am ashamed to admit I never saw coming. But it is devastating:

As I listened to James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, tell the Senate Intelligence Committee about his personal meetings and phone calls with President Trump, I was reminded of something: the experience of a woman being harassed by her powerful, predatory boss. There was precisely that sinister air of coercion, of an employee helpless to avoid unsavory contact with an employer who is trying to grab what he wants.
The parallels she draws between the behavior of a sexual predator/harasser and the behavior Trump exhibited to Comey in attempting to dissuade him from expanding his investigation into Trump’s Russian dealings are inescapable:

On Jan. 27, Mr. Comey received a last-minute dinner invitation from the president, and then learned it would be “just the two of us.” On Thursday, Mr. Comey revealed that he had had to break a date with his wife in order to dine with Mr. Trump. Already, something about this “setup” made him “uneasy.”
He froze: “I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed.”
Trump sitting there, one-on-one with Comey, smugly insisting on “loyalty,” raises the creepy apparition of any male boss in a position of power who desires “an arrangement” with an unwilling female subordinate. The fact that Comey is a full-grown man--the head of the FBI, no less—doesn’t detract from the comparison.

The intimidation, the hint of emotional blackmail—this is exactly the behavior of a well-practiced sexual harasser. There are no significant distinctions in attitude, in method, not even in nuance, and Serratore effectively shows that the interactions that resulted between Comey and Trump are identical to the classic interactions between the  harasser and the harassed:

During that interminable, awkward dinner, Mr. Comey struggled to convince Mr. Trump of the danger of “blurring” boundaries. But Mr. Trump was not deterred and returned to the subject of the loyalty he must have. There you hear the eternal voice of the predatory seducer: the man who knows how hard he can make it for a woman to refuse his needs.
Comey’s attempts to “explain” his behavior—his regret that he couldn’t have been “stronger”—also echo the self-blaming language of the harassment victim. Even the Republican (and some Democratic) Senators’ haranguing questioning of Comey raises eerie echoes of the way victims of sexual assault are treated by all- male bodies sitting in judgment:

During his testimony, Mr. Comey was asked why he had not responded more robustly, why he had not told Mr. Trump that he, the president, was acting inappropriately or reported his behavior immediately to others in authority.
Where have you heard that before?  Why didn’t you fight him off? Did you encourage him? 

Comey’s efforts to extricate himself from Trump’s insistence on “loyalty”—his attempt to reach some “safe” compromise by offering up “honesty” instead—suggests nothing so much as a woman attempting to extricate herself from a wholly uncomfortable situation, in which the balance of power is tilted grossly against her. Even Comey’s efforts to physically hide himself out of Trump’s field of vision (“behind the curtains”) in their later interactions reveals a disturbing similarity to the responses many women are forced to make to unwanted and unwelcome coercion.

Serratore just doesn’t let up in this piece. By the time you are finished reading it, you will either be wholly convinced, or you will remain forever clueless as to what millions of women in this country have experienced day in and day out.  Even Trump’s final interaction with Comey, immediately before he fired him, is analogous. 

In their final exchange, on April 11, Mr. Trump told the F.B.I. director, “I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” On May 9, having rebuffed the president, Mr. Comey was fired.
It’s gross. It’s creepy. It’s what Trump is.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

James Clapper: Watergate 'Pales' in Comparison With Trump Russia Scandal

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. (photo: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty)
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. (photo: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty)

By Katharine Murphy, Guardian UK
07 June 17

Former US spy chief attacks the sharing of intelligence with Putin and says firing of James Comey ‘inexcusable’

he former US director of national intelligence James Clapper says events in Washington now are more serious than the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, and that it is imperative investigators get to the bottom of the Trump administration’s links with the Putin regime.

Clapper used a speech to Australia’s National Press Club on Wednesday to launch a critique of the US president, Donald Trump, describing his decision to cultivate Russia and share intelligence with the Putin regime as “very problematic”. He described Trump’s firing of the FBI chief Jim Comey as “egregious and inexcusable”.

The former intelligence director was asked how current events compared to Watergate and he said the behaviour under scrutiny now was more serious. “I think you compare the two, that Watergate pales, really, in my view, compared to what we’re confronting now.”

Clapper’s appearance in Canberra comes before highly anticipated testimony later this week by Comey before the Senate intelligence committee. The committee is examining whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian officials who interfered in the US presidential election.

Comey is expected to face questions about whether Trump tried to persuade him to stop an investigation into improper contacts between one of his top backroom advisers and Russian officials, and whether the former FBI director was sacked by the president because he refused to comply.

Clapper told the National Press Club in Canberra it was “absolutely crucial for the United States, and for that matter for the world, for this presidency, for the Republicans, for the Democrats and for our nation at large, that we get to the bottom of this”.

“Is there a smoking gun with all the smoke? I don’t know the answer to that. I think it’s vital, though, we find that out.”

Clapper insisted that, whatever Trump’s intentions, there was no way the US and Russia could be allies, because Russia was “opposed to our democracy and values and see us, particularly the United States, as the cause of all their problems and frustrations”.

He said he had a “real hard time reconciling the threat the Russians pose to the United States and, by extension, western democracies in general” with the solicitousness of the Trump administration towards Moscow. “The Russians are not our friends,” he said.

Clapper said Trump, then president-elect, had remarked to him “during my one and only, first and last ever, I’m sure, sojourn to Trump Tower” that it would be “a good thing if we could get along with the Russians”.

Clapper said he told Trump: “Sure, whenever our interests converge, and they do occasionally, fine, but as far as our being intimate allies, trusting buds, with the Russians? That is just not gonna happen”.

He told the Canberra press club the two countries could not be allies because they had irreconcilable differences. It was in Russia’s “genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed, to the United States and western democracies”.

Clapper said he had attempted in the middle of January to dissuade Trump, during a private phone conversation, from attacking the intelligence establishment in Washington but he said the intervention fell on deaf ears.

The president’s team, he said, was motivated by “extreme paranoia” about any material that cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump’s election.

Clapper was asked how Australia should approach its most important foreign policy relationship given the challenges posed by the Trump administration. He said the question was somewhat “imponderable.”

He observed there were people in the administration who could be trusted – nominating Jim Mattis, the defence secretary, John Kelly, the homeland security chief, and HR McMaster, the national security adviser. “They have understanding and respect for our institutions,” he said.

He said he was reluctant to give Australia public advice about its foreign policy relationships but he said: “I just think Australia has to keep on and make decisions based on Australia’s best national interests.

“I have to say that I think prime minister Turnbull has found the balance between being very tactful with our president but at the same time not compromising Australia’s interests and its sovereignty.”

Clapper was asked whether Trump’s decision to share Israeli intelligence with Russia should prompt a rethink of intelligence sharing arrangements under the Five Eyes partnership.

He said individual countries would have to make their own judgments. Clapper said that, at the institutional level, agencies would be concerned if intelligence sharing was discontinued.

“But, to some extent, you know, it reaches a certain level where it’s out of our control,” Clapper said. “I hope it doesn’t happen but I could certainly understand if it did and that’s a judgment that each and every national government will have to make.”

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Tobin Smith, Former Fox Paid Contributor, Confirms What We Always Suspected About Fox.



Tobin_Smith.jpeg
In his article, FEAR & UNbalanced: Confessions of a 14-Year Fox News Hitman, Tobin Smith spills the beans.  He feels free to do so because Roger Ailes is dead. Back in 2000, when he was first hired at Fox, he had a few questions.
“So Roger tell me…who is your Fox News target audience and what turns ’em on?”

“Toby . . . I created a TV network for people 55 to dead,” Ailes said.

“What does our viewer look like?

“They look like me…white guys in mostly Red State counties who sit on their couch with the remote in their hand all day and night.”

“What do they want to see”

“They want to see YOU tear those smug condescending know-it-all East Coast liberals to pieces . . limb by limb . . . until they jump up out of their LaZ boy and scream “Way to go Toby…you KILLED that libtard!”

It was always and only about money.
But what mattered most at Fox was to create an entertainment product out of political/military/economic news and opinion that

By careful design and staging Fox News manipulated (and ultimately addicted) the most vulnerable people in America to the most powerful drug cocktail ever: Visceral gut feelings of outrage relieved by the most powerful emotions of all . . . the thrill of your tribe’s victory over its enemy and the ultimate triumph of good over evil.

In deed and effect, Fox News turned politics into performance art and efficiently sold the soul of America to the highest bidder in return for 2 minute ad sequences aired during the performance intermissions.
The fix was always in.  Facts and Truth were the lowest priority.
But what the mostly older, trusting, small city/rural living Fox News fan never seem to understand about Fox’s partisan performance art programming was this:

The outcomes for Fox’s “panel debates” have ALWAYS been carefully fixed by the producers so that the home team (i.e, the conservative panelists like me) ALWAYS won.

MORE simply: The staged gladiatorial-like rhetorical fight to the death the Fox viewer loves to watch are ALWAYS fixed by the show producers for the conservative actor to win…always.
Any contributor with the least little bit of integrity found their contributing days were over.
Linda Chavez, a long time Fox conservative contributor, basically became a nonperson when she took the position in favor of more legal immigration — even though her position had been consistent for 30+ years and is based on her belief in markets over central planning.
As Linda tells the story “One producer basically told me that it was “confusing” to have me on to discuss the subject because conservatives were supposed to be for less immigration and liberals for more.
Fox practically guaranteed their high ratings because they were feeding an addiction.
Key Point: the viewer’s rage set their brain’s pleasure giving dopamine delivery system into high gear . . .and when their fellow conservative protagonist tribal hero (aka me the hitman) turned the liberal’s own words against them and vanquished the sniveling apostate into living hell on live TV…WOW…the pleasure chemical rushed through the Fox viewer's brain like a deep hit of crack cocaine (btw its the dopamine system in the brain that cocaine stimulates and makes it so addictive).
I tried to save my own mother,  but I could not break through.  She pooh-poohed my facts,and told me that Bill O’Reilly was the only person she trusted.  I was incredulous.  “Even more than me, Mom?”  Yes, because my once excellent” critical thinking and judgement had been clouded by the media I chose to consume.
...one part of the Fox News strategy is the tried and true conservative media narrative to insulate their audiences from opposing views — in part, by continually denouncing the mainstream media(i.e., other news sources) 24/7/365 as “liberal, biased, and not to be trusted.”
I haven’t even begun to mention the exploitation of sex, and the demonizing of non-white people.

There’s a bit of buyer beware.  Smith was fired  in 2013 for promoting dubious and worthless stocks, but he says it was because he refused to obey O’Reilly’s commands.
Well…[O’Reilly] was dead wrong and I told him that and his answer was “Is this the Tobin Smith show? If it is, say what you want. But if this is the O’Reilly show you give what I want.”
OK Bill…and that was the last time I was on The Factor after 40+ appearances.
Conservative cannot complain that Tobin smith is an anonymous source.  Even better, they and we can review old Fox News videos and see for ourselves the veracity of Smith’s claims.

Finally, a caution Kossacks should seriously consider before hitting the Rec button.
Neuroscience has known for years that “news junkies” or “political junkies” were in fact addicts…junkies…who got their addictive dopamine hit from the emotional roller coaster of unbridled outrage followed by the dopamine releasing experience derived from the thrill of watching the victory/denouement of the ideological apostate.

Monday, June 5, 2017

What's Homeland Security Doing at a Right-Wing, Pro-Trump Rally?

Department of Homeland agents (DHS) acting as police arrest a counter protester at a right-wing, pro-Trump rally in Portland. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Department of Homeland agents (DHS) acting as police arrest a counter protester at a right-wing, pro-Trump rally in Portland. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

By Leah Sottile, The Washington Post
05 June 17
readersupportednews.org

Trump regime is getting scarier by the day 


RSN EDITOR'S COMMENT: Homeland security joining local law enforcement at a right-wing, pro-Trump Rally is odd. Looks like they might have been protecting the pro-Trump crowd from anti-fascist counterprotesters: "Between every block were thick lines of Portland police and Homeland Security officers clad in riot gear; they made several arrests. Portland police announced about 3:30 p.m. that the anti-fascist assembly was considered unlawful before deploying a volley of flash grenades into the crowd of counterprotesters, sending black-clad demonstrators running. A bit troubling. - MA/RSN 

n a city splintered by protest, acrimony and the fresh pain of a pair of killings on a light-rail train, demonstrators gathered again — and clashed again — here Sunday afternoon, with a right-wing rally drawing thousands of counterprotesters in the heart of downtown.

The planned, permitted free-speech and pro-President Trump rally came just more than a week after 35-year-old Jeremy Christian — a man who performed Nazi salutes and screamed racial slurs at a recent right-wing rally here in late April — allegedly stabbed three men, killing two, after what witnesses said was a hate-filled tirade against two teenage girls on a light-rail train. The slain men, Rick Best, 53, and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, 23, and the survivor, Micah Fletcher, were standing up to Christian as he harassed the girls, one of whom was wearing a hijab.

The slayings shocked the city and exposed the long-simmering racial tension here, with roots in Oregon’s establishment as a white utopia in the Pacific Northwest. At the light-rail station where the two men were killed, a memorial of flowers, signs and messages of hope and sadness were scrawled in chalk, including this one: “Portland We Have to Do Better.”

Though drawing outrage and sympathy, the deaths in some ways only amplified the issue, again making Portland a magnet for the fight of political extremes.

Mat Dos Santos, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, was giving a television interview about the attacks last week when a man stood behind him performing a Nazi salute. “Did an interview with Al Jazeera in downtown Portland this morning and man walks up and starts doing the Nazi salute behind me on camera,” he tweeted. “The interview was on the rise of hate and Free Speech.”

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) last week tried to cancel Sunday’s right-wing rally, calling on federal officials to aid in pulling the group’s permit because he believed it would be destructive at a particularly difficult time. He wrote on Facebook that “our city is in mourning, our community’s anger is real.” His request, which was declined, drew criticism from the ACLU of Oregon: “The government cannot revoke or deny a permit based on the viewpoint of the demonstrators. Period.”

Sunday’s rally — in an outdoor plaza sandwiched between City Hall and the jail where Christian is being held — provided a vivid illustration of the city’s divisions.

Protesters surrounded the plaza in the hours before the rally began. To the west, in front of City Hall, protesters chanted and displayed signs with such messages as “Wake Up Portland! Your city is racist!” and “Nazis? Never!” Steps away, dozens of local organizations took to a microphone at City Hall in a “Portland Stands Against Hate” rally.

“An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us,” Cari Luna, chair of the Portland chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, said in a statement Sunday morning. “We’re here now, we’re coming together, and we’re saying NO to racism, NO to bigotry. We want a world where every person is truly free, and we’re not going to let the last dinosaurs of the white colonialist patriarchy stand in our way.”

To the north, hundreds of black-clad, left-wing, anti-fascist protesters chanted, blared music and held paper-mache spiders and skeletons, which have become signature icons at Portland protests. Beyond them, a group of Buddhists sat in silent protest.

And to the south, labor union members clad in helmets and safety vests screamed: “Racists! Murderers! Fascists! Out of Portland!”

Between every block were thick lines of Portland police and Homeland Security officers clad in riot gear; they made several arrests. Portland police announced about 3:30 p.m. that the anti-facist assembly was considered unlawful before deploying a volley of flash grenades into the crowd of counterprotesters, sending black-clad demonstrators running.

In the center of it all, at the rally, an assembly of right-wing groups including American Freedom M/C, Patriot Prayer, the III Percenters and Oath Keepers gathered, many of them vowing to defend free speech.

Patriot Prayer’s Joey Gibson, who has said that his group tried to eject Christian from the April protest, brought a message of peace to Portland: “I want everybody here . . . to find it in yourself to make this day positive, with no hate and no violence,” he told the crowd. “We have to understand Portland is legitimately shaken up right now.”

He called on his supporters to “prove them wrong. . . . Hatred is a disease. We need to start spreading love to get rid of this hate.”

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Trump vs. Planet Earth

In a speech in the White House Rose Garden Thursday, Donald Trump announced that the United States will pull out of the Paris climate accord. (photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
In a speech in the White House Rose Garden Thursday, Donald Trump announced that the United States will pull out of the Paris climate accord. (photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

By Jeff Goodell, Rolling Stone
02 June 17

In pulling out of the Paris climate deal, Trump showed America is a clear and present danger to civilization itself

id everyone yell 'Fuck Trump!' today?" a friend emailed shortly after hearing that the president intends to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. The answer to my friend's question is: Yes, pretty much. The disappointment and outrage at Trump's decision came from all directions, from the prime minister of Fiji to Elon Musk. Even former President Obama, who has thus far kept his distance from the political fray, slammed Trump. The response was particularly scathing from Europe.

Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland who has become an outspoken advocate for climate change action, called the U.S. a "rogue state."

The outrage over Trump's move runs deep because the Paris climate deal was never about just the climate. It was also about unity, equality, trust, sympathy – in short, all the qualities that make it possible for seven billion human beings to live together peacefully on the planet. These ideals are the not-so-hidden subtext of every word in the climate accord. They were also palpable in the air at Le Bourget, the old airport on the outskirts of Paris where the climate deal was hammered out in December of 2015.

The Paris deal was the result of years of frightfully complex negotiations and political maneuvering. Believe me, you do not know tedium until you've sat through a UN climate negotiation where a room full of deputy assistant undersecretaries are arguing in bad English over procedural footnotes to an addendum about agricultural carbon sequestration credits.

But in Paris, it all came together. The deal that finally emerged was a complex agreement, imperfect, full of nuance about voluntary emissions targets and how rich nations would help finance clean energy in poor nations. But the gist of the deal was that the head of virtually every nation in the world vowed to reduce greenhouse gases in the coming decades as to limit the warming of the climate to 2 degrees Celsius, the well-established threshold that might allow us to escape the worst impacts of climate change.

On the final night of the talks in Paris, when then-French President Francois Hollande slammed the gavel down, marking formal acceptance of the accord, it was an emotional moment. The cavernous general assembly room at Le Bourget was packed with people from virtually every nation in the world, a sea of black and brown and white faces, some dressed in business attire, some in ceremonial robes and gowns.

Everyone cheered. A man standing next to me, a delegate from the Maldives whom I had never spoken to, grabbed me and hugged me. His eyes were wet with tears.

On Thursday, Trump strolled out into the Rose Garden and flipped his middle finger at the deal. Why? He claimed that the cuts in emissions wouldn't matter, that the deal was unfair to the U.S. because it would hurt the nation's economy while transferring wealth and power to other nations ("I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris," he said). It was all transparently false. Far from hurting the economy, clean energy is the economic engine of the future. Even the mayor of Pittsburgh hit back at him on this, telling CNN, "What [Trump] did was not only bad for the economy of this country, but also weakened America in this world." As for the impact on the earth's temperatures, if all the nations of the world fulfilled their commitments, it wouldn't in itself reduce carbon pollution enough to eliminate the risk of climate catastrophe, but it would be a damn good start. 

Trump's real motivations for pulling out of the deal are obvious: Mired in scandal and stalled with incompetency, this was an easy way to look tough to his fossil-fuel-loving base. But the larger truth is that Trump ditched Paris because it is a profound threat to his greedy, isolationist America First vision of the world. In fact, the climate accord may be the clearest articulation we have yet of an anti-Trump ideology. The fundamental basis of the deal is global, not nationalistic; it is not about grabbing all you can, but about establishing basic rights of equity and fairness. It stipulates that rich polluters owe something to the poor who suffer most (and will do so increasingly) from the ravages of the West's 200-year-long fossil-fuel party. Most of all, it says that we live on one planet, and if we screw it up, we are all in trouble.

It will take four years before the U.S. can formally exit the deal, but already the damage is done. Now what? Both China and the European Union have reaffirmed commitments to the agreement. German Chancellor Angela Merkel says her nation and others "will combine our forces more resolutely than ever ... to address and tackle big challenges for humanity such as climate change." She adds that "we need this Paris agreement to preserve creation. Nothing can and will stop us from doing so." In the U.S., states like California and New York – which, combined, are the fourth largest economy in the world – have already taken strong actions to cut carbon pollution, and are not going to slow down now. Ditto with many cities and corporations like Apple and Nike and Disney and General Electric. It could well be that the backlash against Trump is so strong that it inspires more action, and the U.S. more or less hits the goals it committed to in Paris anyway.

But there's no question that when the world's biggest carbon polluter pulls out of a deal to cut carbon pollution, it is likely to have a corrosive effect on the ambition of other nations. "The biggest obstacle to strong climate action has always been fear of competitive disadvantage," Elliot Deringer, who tracks climate negotiations closely at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, told me in an email Thursday.

"Countries will only put forward their best effort when they're confident others, especially their major competitors, are too. That's the gist of Paris – strengthening confidence that everyone's doing their part. When the world's largest economy walks away, other countries, especially those whose economies are closely tied to the U.S. or whose companies compete with U.S. firms, will have a harder time being ambitious. They may be less zealous in meeting their current targets and less ambitious in the next ones due in 2020. This won't reverse the strong momentum we built in Paris. Countries will keep acting because they know it's in their interest. But it will slow the momentum when what we need is to accelerate it."

Trump, of course, welcomes this. Standing in the Rose Garden Thursday, he did the only thing he knows how to do: sow instability, chaos and fear. He demonstrated to the world that America has become not just a rogue state, but a clear and present danger to civilization itself.

To this, there is only one sensible response: Fuck you, Mr. President.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Abbreviated pundit roundup: Trump vs the planet


apr-copy-2.png
We begin today’s roundup with The New  York Times and it’s take on Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement:
Only future generations will be able to calculate the full consequences of President Trump’s incredibly shortsighted approach to climate change, since it is they who will suffer the rising seas and crippling droughts that scientists say are inevitable unless the world brings fossil fuel emissions to heel.
But this much is clear now: Mr. Trump’s policies — the latest of which was his decision to withdraw from the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change — have dismayed America’s allies, defied the wishes of much of the American business community he pretends to help, threatened America’s competitiveness as well as job growth in crucial industries and squandered what was left of America’s claim to leadership on an issue of global importance.
Here’s Ryan Cooper’s analysis at The Week:
[U]nder Trump the United States has ceded whatever lingering threads of global leadership it had not already shredded by pointless wars of aggression and financial doomsday devices; we are now something of a pariah state. On climate change, it now falls to Europe, China, and India to corral this blundering, addled elephant of a nation, until our janky political machinery can eject Trump and the Republican Party from power. 
The Tampa Bay Times tears into the decision:
President Donald Trump undermined the nation's security and American leadership in the world with his announcement Thursday that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. The move amounts to a staggering abdication of this nation's responsibility for the warming climate, and it will encourage more countries and industries to ignore the impact of rising temperatures and seas on public health and safety. While Trump offered a vague commitment to re-enter talks to seek a more favorable deal, that is window-dressing a senseless decision, choosing to stand by his fanciful campaign promises to revive the coal industry rather than working with China and other polluters for the benefit of global health.
Meanwhile, Margaret Hartmann calls out Trump’s lies:
Trump complained that under the Paris agreement, “China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020.”
The agreement says no such thing. The coal industry is declining in China, India, and the U.S. due to market forces. Other energy sources like natural gas, wind, and solar are cheaper and cleaner. 
Eugene Robinson argues that Trump is “abdicating all the country’s moral power”:
The only other nations that have rejected the Paris pact are Syria and Nicaragua — not the kind of company the United States usually keeps. The rest of the world is going about the business of making big investments in clean-energy technology. The next breakthrough in solar power is likely to be made in China or Germany, not here.
President Trump has decided to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. Here's what you need to know. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)
Energy policy is just one area where Trump is encouraging the rest of the world to go on without us. Much more urgently, Trump has called into question the U.S. commitment to the transatlantic alliance, which for seven decades has been the world’s most important guarantor of peace and engine of prosperity.
Lachlan Markay and Asawin Suesaeng at The Daily Beast:
On a separate conference call on Wednesday, White House deputy communications director Raj Shah encouraged conservative pundits and representatives from free market think tanks to incorporate White House talking points into statements, op-eds, and tweets supporting the president’s decision. [...] Shah’s assurances to those present on the call—including representatives from the American Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, all conservative or climate-skeptical think tanks—indicated the degree to which Trump’s decision appealed to more ideological segments of the right-wing political world.
On a final note, John Cassidy at The New Yorker writes about the consequences of the decision on the world stage:
In writing the speech that Trump delivered on Thursday, Bannon—or Stephen Miller, or whoever composed it—gave free rein to Trump’s maniacal, zero-sum view of the world. The Paris accord wasn’t portrayed as the well-meaning, nonbinding, and, in many ways, modest deal that Barack Obama agreed to join in 2015. Trump spoke of it as if it were an urgent threat to the economic livelihood of god-fearing Americans. “Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw,” Trump said. He could have left it there, but he didn’t. This was to be a lengthy repudiation of environmentalists, and a paean to the coal miners and other hardhats whom the globalists had trampled on. It was a blowback to those who thought, when Trump declined to pull the United States of out of nafta, that the globalists inside his Administration—the Gary Cohns and Rex Tillersons—had neutered the nationalistic America Firsters. And, above all, the speech was a “screw you” to the world beyond America’s borders—to the Macrons and Merkels who had pleaded with the President in vain not to take this step. [...]
What once seemed like a punch line—Donald Trump in the White House—is now an everyday reality that the rest of the world is trying to deal with. After this latest display of nihilism, it only seems more alarming.

UPDATED: NINE States "joining" Paris Accord

THE UNITED STATES CLIMATE ALLIANCE HAS BEEN FORMED
The governors of New York, California and Washington in the past hour have announced the formation of an alliance of US states to follow the Paris Accords.  This represents over one-fifth of the US economy, and it is only the beginning of many more states prepared to join.

Once again, a Trump policy will be marginalized.  Still dangerous — but it will be a lot more smoke (literally) than fire.

Inslee, New York Governor Cuomo, and California Governor Brown announce formation of United States Climate Alliance


Brown, Cuomo and Inslee Will Serve as Co-Chairs, Urge Others to Join

OLYMPIA - In response to President Trump’s decision to withdraw
from the Paris Climate Agreement, New York Governor Andrew
Cuomo, California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., and Washington
State Governor Jay Inslee today announced the formation of the
United States Climate Alliance, a coalition that will convene states
committed to upholding the Paris Climate Agreement and taking
aggressive action on climate change.  New York, California and
Washington, representing one-fifth of U.S. gross domestic product,
committed to achieving the U.S. goal of reducing emissions 26-28 
percent from 2005 levels and meeting or exceeding the targets of the 
federal Clean Power Plan.

UPDATE:  On Friday, the Governors of Hawaii, Oregon, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont and Massachusetts announced that their states are joining the United States Climate Alliance and will abide by the emission reduction targets  in the Paris accords!!