Mediaboss Marketing

Charlotte Observer

Obama gave this crack dealer a second chance. Here's what he's doing with it. Charlotte Observer During his two terms in office, President Barack Obama commuted the sentences of 1,715 people. That's more than the previous 13 presidents combined. Last November in a conference call with reporters, White House Counsel Neil Eggleston and Deputy ... and more »

Read more from the original source:
Obama gave this crack dealer a second chance. Here's what he's doing with it. - Charlotte Observer

New York Times

Trump Signs Executive Order Unwinding Obama Climate Policies New York Times WASHINGTON President Trump, flanked by company executives and miners, signed a long-promised executive order on Tuesday to nullify President Barack Obama's climate change efforts and revive the coal industry, effectively ceding American ... As Trump reverses Obama's climate plans, China's leadership moment arrivesWashington Post Ex-Obama team distressed as Trump guts climate regsPolitico Trump's reversal of Obama climate-change policies could actually hurt oil and gas companiesCNBC BBC News -Fox News Insider -Los Angeles Times all 1,953 news articles »

Original post:
Trump Signs Executive Order Unwinding Obama Climate Policies - New York Times

More than 100 countries are meeting at the United Nations this week to negotiate a global ban on nuclear weapons. That would normally be a big deal, but its not this time. Thats because more than 40 countries, including the United States and many of its closest allies, are skipping the negotiations, hoping in vain the ban will just go away.

In fact, not a single country that possesses nuclear weapons has sent a delegation to the negotiation in New York. The Russians are there in spirit, though because in the absence of the United States and its allies, the negotiations are taking a decidedly anti-American tone, one that will bring a smile to Vladimir Putins face while leaving a lot of us who support the elimination of nuclear weapons shaking our heads.

To be fair, it is far too early to know whether the resulting agreement will be helpful or harmful. There will be two negotiating sessions: the current one, which will last until March 31, and another that will run from June 15 to July 7. The major question is whether the new agreement will strengthen or undermine the existing Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). If the new agreement requires its signatories to be members of the NPT in good standing, as Adam Mount and Richard Nephew have suggested, it will likely be harmless. On the other hand, some may see the new agreement as an alternative to the NPT, one that would create an alternate international legal arrangement for nuclear weapons that imposes far weaker nonproliferation terms. And there may be other problems, nominally regarding the transit of nuclear weapons, that will impede the ability of the United States to provide security guarantees to its allies. For many of us, the wisdom of a ban on nuclear weapons depends crucially on such details. The worry is that this ban on nuclear weapons will actually serve as a legal excuse for states to leave the NPT and start their own nuclear weapons programs.

Of course, a nuclear weapons ban would be less likely to have these problems if the United States and its allies were frickin participating. Having raised international expectations for progress on disarmament with his soaring rhetoric in Prague in 2009, former U.S. President Barack Obama generally took a dim view of the international efforts he inspired. (I cant help but notice he kept the Nobel Peace Prize, though.) The Obama administration reacted with an incredible ferocity to the states that organized the so-called humanitarian consequences initiative, as though its suggestion that dropping a nuclear weapon on a city might have adverse humanitarian impacts posed a mortal challenge to American alliances. The United States largely skipped these meetings until it was too late and was forced to whip votes against the various General Assembly resolutions that followed, including the one that endorsed the idea of negotiating a new ban on nuclear weapons. St. Barry of Prague was not without sin.

The Obama administration opposed all these initiatives kicking and screaming, arguing that banning the bomb should be left to the nuclear weapons states, particularly the United States and Russia. Leaving it to the nuclear weapons states meant nothing happened on disarmament, particularly after U.S.-Russian relations went in the toilet and Moscow rejected Obamas offer to follow the New START treaty with an additional round of nuclear weapons reductions. Russia simply isnt interested in cutting the number of nuclear weapons. Rather, Moscow is in the midst of an ongoing nuclear modernization that includes a revival of Soviet-era plans for new heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles and rail-launch missiles, new cruise missiles that violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and an underwater drone designed to drench coastal cities in radioactivity. So Moscow told Obama where to stick his offer of more cuts.

The United States might have usefully leveraged the worlds enthusiasm for nuclear disarmament to publicly push back against Putins enthusiasm for new nuclear weapons but chose not to. Instead, the United States has largely abandoned leadership to those states that are more interested in using disarmament issues to beat up the United States. As a result, it was pretty easy for people to look the other way with a lame reference to both sides opposing disarmament. If you wonder why it is difficult to persuade European governments to take seriously the new Russian nuclear weapons pointing at them, look no further than Obamas ability to raise hopes with soaring rhetoric, then dash them with timidity and caution.

The ultimate effect of that approach is on display in New York this week and can fairly be described as the worst possible arrangement imaginable. A bunch of states are now going to negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons that may seriously undermine both Americas nonproliferation efforts and its security commitments around the world. And the United States will fecklessly oppose this effort in a way perfectly suited to excuse Russias ongoing nuclear arms buildup.

Pretty much the only way this situation could be worse is if the president of the United States was a pro-Putin stooge who was actively sabotaging NATO and other U.S. alliances while openly musing about expanding U.S. nuclear forces on Twitter.

Oh, hell.

There was no reason for the Obama administration to oppose either the humanitarian consequences initiative or negotiations on a nuclear weapons ban. It is nearly impossible to imagine a scenario in which it would be in the interest of the United States to initiate the use of a nuclear weapon. The debate among policy types has long been about whether to say that publicly or just keep thinking it silently to ourselves. Well, at least until now. After watching Ted Cruz and Donald Trump try to outdo each other in the Republican presidential primary debates by proposing various war crimes like torture, carpet-bombing civilians, and murdering terrorists families, I am not so sure. But using a nuclear weapon would likely be far worse than even all that. And yet we cant find it in ourselves to make the same condemnation.

Thats a mistake. After all, it is much easier to imagine Russia or North Korea using nuclear weapons first. And so, by keeping this option open for ourselves, we make it far easier for others to make the same threats. Our inability to admit that simple truth leaves open the possibility for other states to threaten the United States and its allies with nuclear weapons and then neatly deflect criticism by pointing out that the United States reserves the same right.

The Trump administration isnt going to participate in these negotiations, nor is it going to sign a ban. But that wont make it go away. The ban is very real and so are the political currents driving it forward. Ultimately, we will have to reckon with those consequences, sooner or later, in New York or abroad. The challenge of dealing with these headaches will fall first to the same U.S. diplomats sitting out the negotiations in New York. They will be tasked with shoring up U.S. alliances and the NPT, elements every bit as important to reducing nuclear dangers as the nuclear weapons ban. If we are lucky, thats the only fallout we will have to deal with.

Photo credit: SCOTT APPLEWHITE/Pool/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

More:
Obama's Dream of a Nuclear-Free World Is Becoming a Nightmare - Foreign Policy (blog)

The former Obama administration official who admitted earlier this month that her former colleagues tried to secretly gather intelligence on President Trumps team was no low-level staffer.

Evelyn Farkas was once considered the most senior policy officer for Russia within the Pentagon, and she is now apparently defending the leaks that have been coming out of the Trump White House.

Now an MSNBC analyst and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, Farkas has "advised three secretaries of defense on Russia policy," according to a senior defense official quoted in Politico. She has served on the Council on Foreign Relations and the Senate Armed Services Committee, among others, and was executive director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism in 2008-2009.

In an appearance on MSNBC earlier this month, Farkas told Mika Brezinski about her role in the efforts to collect intelligence on Trumps team, and their alleged ties with Russia, in the Obama adminstrations final days.

I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill... get as much information as you can," Farkas said, adding that her big fear was "if [Trump staffers] found out how we knew what we knew about their ... the Trump staff dealing with Russians that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

At the end of the interview, Farkas said, "we have good intelligence on Russia... that's why you have the leaking. People are worried."

Farkas was responding to a report in The New York Times suggesting the "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking."

Farkas notably served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia under President Obama, and parted ways with the White House in 2015 after some five years amid the ongoing debate over how to respond to Russia's role in the unfolding conflict in Ukraine. Farkas reportedly supported Ukraine's request for weapons in the fight against Russian-backed rebels. The White House opted to send millions in "nonlethal" aid.

On May 6, 2014, Farkas told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Russia's actions threatened to upend the international peace "that we and our allies have worked to build since the end of the Cold War."

News of her resignation broke just over a year later, at the end of September 2015. It was on Sept. 28, 2015, that President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

At the time, a senior U.S. defense official said Farkas departure was not related to a policy dispute and that she was leaving the job after five years for an opportunity outside of government. Her resignation also came just days after Gen. John Allen announced his departure as the point person for ISIS policy at the State Department.

Farkas would go on to serve as a foreign policy advisor for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, telling the New Yorker earlier this month that she thought Clinton "got it" when it came to issues regarding Russia.

Farkas has been calling for an independent investigation into the alleged ties between Russia and the President's team for some time. In an interview in February of this year, Farkas suggested "the White House is clearly trying to hide something, or the president would have said, on day one, that he would support the investigations that began under his predecessor."

On Twitter, Farkas has been tough on House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif.,former Trump campaign advisor Paul Manafort, and she also appears to support efforts by Senate Democrats to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch. "Bring back filibuster 4 democracy," Farkas wrote on March 23, the day Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) urged the rest of his colleagues to vote no on the nomination.

Read this article:
Who is Obama administration official who spilled beans? - Fox News

The Interior Departmenton Wednesdayofficially rolled back a major Obama administration coal initiative.

Secretary Ryan Zinke formally lifted the ban on new coal leasing on federal land, a policy shift that was one of the cornerstones of the climate and energy executive order that President Trump signedon Tuesday.

Interior also suspended a review of federal coal-leasing rates that the Obama administration and environmental activists had touted as a win-win for the climate and for taxpayers.

The order, while fulfilling a key campaign promise from Trump, generated swift opposition from environmentalists and public lands supporters, who immediately sued over the order lifting the coal-leasing moratorium.

The groups say the in-depth study of the coal program was justified by science and by simple economic facts.

Those facts caused the Obama administration to believe that reforms to the federal coal leasing program were warranted, and in fact they should consider whether to continue federal coal leasing altogether, said Jenny Harbine, a staff attorney at Earthjustice, representing the groups. The plaintiffs on the suit include national organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity and local groups like the Montana Environmental Information Center.

Secretary Zinke has to confront those same facts. Rather than confront them with science and reason, the Trump administration is confronting those facts with politics.

Throughout his campaign, Trump vowed to help coal miners by lifting Obama regulations on fossil fuel production.

For industry supporters, the coal moratorium was among the most egregious examples of Obama administration overreach.

The Interior Department, then led by Sally JewellSally JewellOvernight Regulation: Trump administration lifts Obama freeze on federal coal mining Trump administration ends Obama's coal-leasing freeze Interior secretary reopens federal coal mining MORE, paused the sale of new coal leases on federal land in 2016 and launched a review of the coal program.

That study looked to ensure that leasing royalty rates properly account for the climate impact of burning the coal mined on federal lands. Officials said the review was a matter of fairness for taxpayers: The rates havent gone up in three decades, even though mining on federal lands accounts for 40 percent of all coal produced in the United States.

Mining groups and Republicans slammed Obama for the coal review, saying it would hamstring an industry that has already suffered from declining demand on the open market.

Lifting the moratorium, industry supporters say, will help miners in Western states where there are large tracts of recoverable coal on public land.

Its providing some certainty, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said. These regulations continue to just compound and further exacerbate a difficult situation with low natural gas prices for the coal industry. Now theres new hope.

Opponents of Zinkes action say lifting the moratorium undermines the goals of Obamas review by allowing the payment of royalty rates that are decades out of date.

In lifting the moratorium now, theyre opening the door to new leases that will lock in the royalty rates that have already been found to be unfair to U.S. taxpayers, Harbine said.

They are locking in those really disastrous leases before theyve even completed that consideration.

Zinke vowedWednesdayto continue researching royalty and rent rates for federal coal mining. His office established a royalty policy committee to weigh in on rates for federal energy production and didnt preclude the possibility of raising those rates in the future.

I want to make sure how we value [coal] and our rents are transparent and the taxpayer is getting fair value from assets that are on public lands, Zinke said.

Anti-fossil fuel activists dispute the Trump administrations argument that his order will be a boon for coal mining.

They say Trumps order doesnt change the underlying market challenges facing the coal sector, and even Zinke acknowledged leasing decisions would have to follow demand from mining firms themselves.

There has been, I would say, not a rush in the last few years for coal leases, Zinke saidWednesday, blaming both the energy market and federal regulations.

Well see where the market goes, and well be prepared to process them as we open up the areas for lease, and well see.

Read the rest here:
Trump administration ends Obama's coal-leasing freeze - The Hill