David Cameron has resigned as prime minister after Britain voted to leave the European Union.
The prime minister said Britain required "fresh leadership" to negotiate the country's exit from the EU.
"I do not think it would be right for me to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination," he said in a statement outside Downing Street.
He promised to "steady the ship" over the coming months before stepping down in October.
Mr Cameron said the result was the "will of the British people" which was an "instruction which must be delivered".
Mr Cameron was close to tears as he announced his decision.
The referendum, called by Mr Cameron, delivered a shock victory for the Leave campaign.
The Brexit vote immediately sent the pound tumbling and sparked calls for his resignation.
Boris Johnson is the favourite to replace Mr Cameron.
IS OBAMA LEADING THE UNITED STATES INTO ANOTHER NORTH v SOUTH TYPE CIVIL WAR FOR 2016 POLITICS?
IT IS TIME TO PRAY.
Sources: Fox News, CBS News, USA Today, Daily Caller, YouTube
On Monday, March 21, 2016 GOP Presidential front runner Donald J Trump will meet with several GOP establishment top brass members.
He will probably also meet with some Democrat party too brass, however I doubt the mainstream media (CNN) will report it.
During Trump's meeting today with Political top brass, discussions regarding recent DEATH THREATS made against his family and Trump conceding the race 2016 race so Hillary's Coronation can proceed will be the main topics of conversation.
Our country's Elite, Bilderberg sponsored political top brass have thus far been unsuccessful in their efforts to halt Trump's Winning Political Movement.
Despite mainstream media propaganda and lies, there has been very little Voter Enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton's second presidential bid.
This explains why key Democrat leaders are using Bernie Sanders as a Voting gimmick.
A vote for Sanders, is actually a vote for Hillary.
So it's not really Hillary winning all those caucuses and primaries. It's Sanders!
Sanders fires up the voters!
Sanders draws voters to the polls.
Sanders gets the votes and wins the Delegates.
Sanders Delegates are then given to Hillary.
Thus Hillary's Coronation proceeds as per Deals made months ago between Political elite top brass, Obama, the Clintons & the Bilderberg group.
Donald J Trump is the only 2016 Presidential candidate with Authentic, genuine voter support at his back.
American voters are tired of being treated by Political elite top brass as if we were not granted a Free Will by GOD.
American voters are tired of being treated by Political elite top brass as if we don't have a mind to make our own decisions.
American voters are tired of being treated by Political elite top brass as if the U.S. Constitution is a mere joke.
Whatever happened to "For the people, By the people, We the people" as it states in the U.S. Constitution??
If GOP party top brass, Democrat party top brass and Bilderberg group member Kills Donald J Trump or steals the Nomination from him, it could possibly lead to riots or Split the United States forever, as another North v South type Civil War.
If the United States splits BARACK OBAMA remains President and will be the first Politician in more than 100 years to lead this nation into another self-destructing Civil War.
By the way..........
There are Political rumours floating that TED CRUZ is not really a Conservative but that he is really an elite GLOBALIST, fully in bed with the Bilderberg group.
Donald Trump will reportedly meet Monday in Washington with nearly two dozen influential Republicans, with the apparent hope of improving relations with the GOP establishment.
The Republican presidential front-runner will be in the nation’s capital to speak at the annual policy conference for AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major pro-Israel group.
Trump’s meeting with Republican lawmakers and other party leaders, as first reported by The Washington Post, will be his first major discussion with them since last fall, when he was on Capitol Hill to protest President Obama’s Iranian nuclear agreement.
The off-the-record meeting was reportedly organized in part by Alabama GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has endorsed Trump.
The names of the attendees have not been released, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told “Fox News Sunday” that he’ll be in his home state of Kentucky on Monday, while Congress is on a two-week recess.
At least some factions of the so-called Republican establishment have tried to stop Trump from winning the nomination, in part by supporting other candidates, purportedly backing negative-advertising campaigns and speaking out against the billionaire businessman’s agenda, which includes a vow to dismantle the establishment’s grip on politics, government and wealth.
Meanwhile, Trump has continued to call for party unity to help defeat the Democratic presidential nominee, which increasingly appears to be Hillary Clinton, as he continues to win primaries, add delegates and eliminate primary challengers.
DONALD TRUMP'S APPEAL - OPPORTUNITY, GREATNESS, BUSINESS GROWTH & SUCCESS FOR ALL:
STEPHEN COLBERT AGREES.
2016 GOP Frontrunner Donald Trump's appeal represents more than his Bold personality and Fame.
For American voters, Vets, the U.S. Military and Wall Street Trump's appeal actually represents Opportunity, Greatness, Business Growth & Success for all.
Comedian and Political Commentator Stephen Colbert agrees with this analysis.
"There is something really hopeful about the fact that, well, 36 percent of the likely voters want him so the people in the machine don't get to say otherwise," late-night host says
Over the past few months, Stephen Colbert has had some fun with Donald Trump's headlines-grabbing presidential campaign, from overdosing on Trump jokes to daring the GOP frontrunner to donate $1 million to charity to disguising Jon Stewart as the mogul. However, in a new interview with Face the Nation set to air Sunday, Colbert admitted that he admires how Trump's campaign has shifted the balance of power in the Republican party.
"There's a populism to Trump that I found very appealing," Colbert said. "The party elders would like him to go away but the people have decided that he is not going to. I may disagree with anything that he's saying and think that his proposals are a little ... well, more than a little shocking. But there is something really hopeful about the fact that, well, 36 percent of the likely voters want him so the people in the machine don't get to say otherwise. That's the one saving grace, I think, of his candidacy."
As 2016 approaches and Trump's GOP lead continues to swell, Colbert also confessed that his earlier boast that there was no way Trump could ever win the White House was shortsighted. "What I do respect is that he knows that it is an emotional appeal, and it might be emotional appeals that I can't respect, but he knows that you have to appeal to the voter. And that's why, I may be wrong - I made a big deal about there's no way he's gonna win," Colbert said before conceding, "I don't know anything about politics."
At a press event before Colbert took the helm of The Late Show, the former Colbert Report host was asked about Trump's presidential odds. "Honestly, he could, and that's not an opinion of Trump. That's my opinion of our nation," Colbert said. "You know what, there have been some great presidents and there have been some bad presidents. Having a giant swinging set of balls isn't the worst thing in the world."
Sources: CBS News, Rolling Stone, NY Times, Face The Nation, YouTube
Nearly 200 nations adopted the first global pact to fight climate
change on Saturday, calling on the world to collectively cut and then
eliminate greenhouse gas pollution but imposing no sanctions on
countries that don't.
The "Paris agreement" aims to keep global
temperatures from rising another degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) between
now and 2100, a key demand of poor countries ravaged by rising sea
levels and other effects of climate change.
The countries pledge
to limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the
same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning
at some point between 2050 and 2100.
Achieving such a reduction
in emissions would involve a complete transformation of how people get
energy, and many activists worry that despite the pledges, countries are
not ready to make such profound and costly changes.
The deal now
needs to be ratified by individual governments - at least 55 countries
representing at least 55 percent of global emissions - before taking
effect.
The White House is calling the Paris accord "the most
ambitious climate change agreement in history" and says it establishes
"a long-term, durable global framework" to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is praising the new
accord on global warming as a deal that will save the world for
generations to come, saying "it's a victory for all of the planet and
for future generations."
Kerry told fellow negotiators Saturday
in Paris that "it will help the world prepare for the impacts of climate
change that are already here and also for those that we already know
are on our way inevitably." He added the pact would "prevent the worst
most devastating consequences of climate change from ever happening."
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore says "years from now, our
grandchildren will reflect on humanity's moral courage to solve the
climate crisis. And they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when
the community of nations finally made the decision to act."
Nicaragua's U.S.-born climate envoy, Paul Oquist, told climate
negotiators that his country is "not able to support the consensus." He
said the agreement does not go far enough and leads to twice as much
global warming as the stated goals.
South African environment minister Edna Molewa calls the pact "the best we can get at this historic moment."
She says it "can map a turning point to a better and safer world" but
she added that developed countries still have to cut emissions more and
help poorer nations to counter the effects of global warming.
Global CLIMATE CHANGE Laws (new TAXES) being pushed by Pres OBAMA and other Elite world leaders will not "Save the Planet", nor "Protect the Future of our Children".
These new set of Global CLIMATE CHANGE Taxes and Regulations being pushed by the Wealthy Elite, will in fact help to reconfigure Mankind on planet Earth via destroying the current Middle Class and eliminating people stuck in Poverty.
It is really all about making the Super RICH more Wealthy by creating only two Economic groups:
August 21, 2015 by Bob Loewen
Bob Loewen is the chairman of the California Policy Center.
I was eighteen years old in 1966 when my plane circled the tiny airport in Ontario, California. I was traveling from the Bay Area to Claremont to begin my freshman year in college. Looking down from my window seat, the overcast cloud cover prevented me from seeing the freeways and buildings on the ground. When we landed, however, I looked up and saw a hazy blue sky. Then I realized that I was looking up through the cloud cover that I had observed from above. To my horror, what I had seen below me from the sky was not cloud cover at all; it was thick, brown smog, and I was breathing it.
That was the day I became an environmentalist. Although I have a libertarian’s skepticism of government, many times I have supported government programs to clean up the air, water, forests and beaches. In this way, I am like other Californians. Because all of us love and defend the natural resources of our state, the brand “environmentalist” is almost as popular as Santa Claus.
George Orwell warned, however, “political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” [1] California’s climate change laws have nothing to do with removing smog or keeping California’s beaches clean. They hurt the poor and benefit no one. Yet a political elite has managed to impose its will on the California economy without having to explain why it has chosen to hurt the poor for no benefit to the public largely because they use the label “environmentalist”. It is time to hold them accountable.
Orwell’s warning also applies to the substance of the climate change conversation. The climate change elites do not discuss climate change issues in the manner of scientists; they collapse multiple distinct issues into demonizing rhetoric: “The science is settled,” they say in response to every argument that is made; this means that the opponent is a “science denier”. Seldom is this rhetoric even arguably responsive.
While science is one of the principal subjects of the discussion about predicting earth’s climate future through scientific computer modeling, it is no more than political rhetoric to argue that one scientist is so completely wrong in his opinion, and the other so clearly correct, that the first is “denying” the very principles of science. And this is not even the main point of this essay…
Opponents who have other reasons for their opposition to climate change laws usually do not challenge the science. Assuming the climate change outcomes have been predicted accurately by proponents, for example, opponents nevertheless contend that enforcement of climate change laws will not eliminate or delay the predicted harmful effects of climate change because reductions in GHG emissions required by California (or EPA) are more than offset by increased emissions from new power generation plants in China and India.
Opponents who make this point do not deny the science; they embrace it.
The climate change elites do not respond to this point as a distinct argument for which they are accountable; at most, they pretend that the issue does not exist, a slick move worthy of Orwell’s admonition about “political speech”.
California has the most aggressive climate change laws of any state in the nation and is the only state imposing a cap and trade protocol on emitters. It requires that GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels no later than 2020.
This year, new laws have been proposed to tighten that standard, requiring that 2020 emissions be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels. Other restrictions include specific requirements that specified minimum levels of wind and solar power be included in the mix of power sources.
All of this makes power in California the most expensive in the nation.
According to the Manhattan Institute, “California’s renewable energy mandates and climate change policies . . . are having a disproportionate economic impact on the poor.” [2] The report found that “in 2012, about 1 million California households were living in energy poverty, a term that applies to households that spend 10 percent, or more, of their income on household energy costs.”
There is a considerable disparity between wealthy areas, such as Mill Valley in Marin County, whose monthly energy costs were only $200 per home because of mild weather conditions, and middle-income areas, such as the town of Hanford in the San Joaquin Valley, where harsher average weather leads to average monthly energy costs of about $500 per home.
The climate change elite is leaving the poor and middle class behind in other ways too.
The Manhattan Institute study found that because of the high cost of compliance (estimated $115 billion to meet renewable requirements alone), California’s climate change laws are forcing businesses out of the state, resulting in job losses. There are also collateral effects from the general hostility of climate change elites to any business involved with fossil fuels. Take fracking, for example. Two years ago, Californians were excited about the potential for thousands of jobs when we learned that California’s shale formations are even richer than those in boom states like North Dakota. [3] A USC study predicted that fossil fuels from shale would provide “up to 2.8 million jobs, increasing the state’s total economic output by up to 14.3 percent . . . boosting personal income by up to 10 percent.” [4] Due to actions in Sacramento, nothing has happened. Why not? A public official who wants to help the poor and middle class close the economic gap has enough information to allow fracking to proceed, but for now, the political elites prefer to keep fossil fuels right where they are, embedded deep in California’s shale.
Most troubling is that the goals of climate change laws are not achieved even when they are strictly enforced. For example, the EPA is pressuring American utilities to stop using coal because it generates more GHGs than other fuel sources. India and China, however, both build coal-fired power plants faster than the United States can remove its own. [5] Eric Roston, writing for Bloomberg Business, observes “’The U.S. is dropping coal plants at an unprecedented rate, but still nowhere as quickly as India is adding them,” and “By 2020 India may have built about 2.5 times as much capacity [in coal] as the U.S. is about to lose.” [6]
China, “the world’s biggest coal addict by far,” has a plan to build hundreds of coal plants, which negates the efficacy of emissions limits imposed by political elites in this country. Eric Lawson of Princeton University, known for his strong stance in favor of the science of climate change, is quoted by Stephen Moore in Investors Business Daily: “From 2010 through 2013, (China) added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week for seven straight years. [7] And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.”
California’s climate change laws are particularly vulnerable to the criticism that they will not change the predicted outcome of man-made warming because, according to the Manhattan Institute study, all of California’s emissions are only 1% of GHG emissions worldwide and 6% of total U.S. emissions. There are no climate models that support the idea that reduction of some or all of those amounts will affect global climate change given increases of emissions in China and India.
Instead of responding directly to these criticisms, some have argued that China and India will change; if the U.S. sticks with its stringent emission reduction policies, they contend, our example will encourage them to reverse the increases in emissions that represent their recent history and turn those into reductions in emissions.
This is pure Utopian fantasy.
About 900 coal plants are currently planned in China and India.
Where is the evidence that India or China have made any plans to change these to lower-emission energy plants? What plans have been made to tear down the existing coal plants and replace them? Absent concrete plans, the follow-my-lead theory is far-fetched.
There is no precedent to suggest that follow-my-lead will succeed. There is, however, precedent suggesting it will not succeed. In California, proponents of AB32 sold the most aggressive state law on climate change in America partly on the follow-my-lead theory. They told Californians that when AB32 was enacted, other states would follow California’s example by adopting statutes similar to AB32.
This effort failed; not one state has adopted a climate change law like California’s. Since it should have been easier to convince another state, like Oregon, to join California on climate change law than to convince a sovereign nation like China, California’s experience disproves the follow-my-lead theory.
Proponents of climate change laws point to the “Joint Announcement” on climate change dated November 12, 2014 signed during President Obama’s visit to China as supposed proof that China is willing to reconsider its policy of increasing emissions.
The Joint Agreement, however, confirms that China will continue to increase its emissions through at least 2030. Much false information has been implied about this nonbinding statement. But it is available on line, and its meaning is pretty clear.
[8] China does not commit anywhere in the document to reduce its emissions; it only states, without agreeing, that it might reach a peak in its increases by 2030. By signing the Joint Agreement, President Obama effectively acknowledges that current conditions will not change before 2030 at the earliest. This means that the heavy burdens created by California’s emissions limits cannot achieve the intended benefits until sometime after that date.
These critical problems with climate change laws have been known for a long time.
Yet climate change elites do not respond to them, making it clear that they have no response that makes sense. This does not mean that nothing should be done about climate change.
But it does mean we need to change the laws that are hurting the poor and middle class, examine what is possible in the area of adaptation, and hold the political elites accountable. The future of California depends on it.
FOOTNOTES
(1) “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell, 1946
(2) “Renewable Energy Mandates Same As A Tax On The Poor,” by Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute, 7/26/2015
(3) “Fixing California: Will Fracking Bonanza Be Allowed?,” Chris Reed, CPC Prosperity Forum, 9/30/2013
(4) “The Monterey Shale & California’s Economic Future,” USC Price School of Public Policy, March 2013
(5) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(6) “The Grim Promise of India’s Coal-Powered Future,” Eric Roston, Bloomberg Business, 5/21/2015
(7) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(8) U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change, 11/12/2014
Sources: California Policy Center, Manhattan Institute, Fox News, YouTube, CPC Prosperity, USC Price School of Public Policy
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
