Displaying posts published in

May 2025

When the Ice Cracks: Michael Mann’s Legal Defeat and the Climate of Accountability David Manney

https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2025/05/24/when-the-ice-cracks-michael-manns-legal-defeat-and-the-climate-of-accountability-n4940123

There was a time, not so long ago, when climate scientist Michael Mann could bully critics into silence with the mere threat of a lawsuit. He was the face behind the infamous “hockey stick” graph, a man lauded by progressives, featured in Al Gore’s documentary, and embraced by a media eager to label skeptics as dangerous deniers. But the courtroom, as it turns out, is no place for manufactured myths or moral grandstanding.

A Washington, D.C. court just handed Mann a bruising legal defeat. After more than a decade of litigation, he has been ordered to pay over $1 million in attorney’s fees to the very people he accused of defamation: National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), and writer Rand Simberg, a former PJM contributor.

Even more humiliating, the court revealed that Mann grossly misrepresented his financial damages. Once celebrated as a martyr for the climate cause, he now stands exposed as a fabricator, not just of projections, but of personal injury.

The Graph That Launched a Thousand Grants

Mann’s rise to prominence began with a temperature reconstruction graph published in 1998. It erased historical warming periods such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in favor of a dramatic 20th-century spike. To the casual observer, it looked like mankind had shoved the planet off a climate cliff.

The media ran with it. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) elevated the hockey stick to icon status. Schools taught it. Politicians cited it. Al Gore plastered it in “An Inconvenient Truth,” like a gospel.

But critics soon noticed that something wasn’t right. Canadian researchers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick uncovered glaring flaws in Mann’s methodology, showing that his algorithm could produce a hockey stick shape even when fed with random data. This wasn’t just bad science; it was political theater dressed in lab coats.

From Researcher to Legal Enforcer

Rather than engage in honest debate, Mann chose litigation as his cudgel. In 2012, he sued National Review and CEI after their writers criticized his work and compared how Penn State handled their investigations of Mann after the East Anglia emails leak, and of Penn State’s disgraced football coach, Jerry Sandusky.

This was not a matter of protecting one’s reputation from slander. This was a climate scientist declaring war on dissent. And for a while, it worked. The lawsuits dragged on for over ten years. Many media outlets pulled back from covering the criticisms, not out of agreement, but out of fear.

The recent rulings, however, dismantle Mann’s claims. The D.C. court awarded National Review $530,820.21 in legal fees. CEI and Simberg will receive $472,000. These were not sympathy payouts. They were direct rebukes of a man who tried to game the legal system as thoroughly as he gamed climate projections.

A Courtroom Beatdown

In one of the ruling’s most scathing parts, the court found that Mann and his attorneys misled the jury about the damages he suffered. He testified he lost grants, suffered financially, and had speaking engagements canceled because of the defamation.

But evidence showed the opposite. Mann’s career flourished during the litigation. His speaking fees increased, and his public profile soared. His hardship claim was a mirage, and the court wasn’t buying it.

Mark Steyn’s Vindication: A Triumph for Free Speech and Personal Fortitude David Manney

https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2025/05/24/mark-steyns-vindication-a-triumph-for-free-speech-and-personal-fortitude-n4940136

In a previous column, I detailed Michael Mann’s unraveling legal crusade, focusing on his courtroom defeat and the staggering financial penalty levied against him. Readers’ responses were passionate, particularly about the absence of commentary on Mark Steyn.

Let me be direct: the omission was intentional. The Mann saga deserved focus, and Steyn’s fight deserves its own chapter.

This is that chapter.

Author, broadcaster, and unflinching cultural critic Mark Steyn did not merely weather a defamation trial. He survived it physically, financially, and morally when most would have buckled under the strain. What began as a battle over words became a battle over the soul of free speech.

The Lawsuit That Should Have Never Been

In 2012, Michael Mann filed a defamation suit against Steyn, the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), and Rand Simberg. Simberg had published a blog post likening Mann’s professional conduct to Penn State’s handling of Jerry Sandusky. Steyn quoted Simberg’s post and added his commentary, calling Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph fraudulent.

Rather than engage in rebuttal, Mann went for the jugular. He sued.

Steyn endured a legal process that lasted over a decade, dragging him through courtrooms, draining his resources, and exposing him to smears. 

While National Review and CEI were eventually dismissed from the case, Steyn fought alone. There were no corporate backers or legal insulation, just Steyn, his pen, and a mountain of principle.

The ‘Two-State Solution’ to Kill Jews, Destroy Israel by Bassam Tawil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21650/two-state-solution

After the 2007 Hamas takeover, the Gaza Strip became an independent Palestinian state controlled by Hamas, with its own government, parliament, police force, and multiple armed groups. The Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip, in addition, had exclusive control over the border with Egypt, which was also abandoned by Israel.

In the absence of any Israeli military or civilian presence inside Gaza, Hamas had a chance to turn the coastal strip into a prosperous area, a “Singapore” or “Dubai” on the Mediterranean. Instead, the terror group chose to manufacture and smuggle weapons, including rockets and missiles, and invest tens of millions of dollars in building a vast network of tunnels for stockpiling its weapons, facilitating the concealed movement of terrorists, and providing shelter for its leaders and members.

[T]he war is continuing because of Hamas’s refusal to release the remaining Israeli hostages, relinquish control over the Gaza Strip and lay down its weapons. Hamas, backed and armed by Iran, is determined to fight to the last Palestinian because its primary goal is to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamist state.

For more than a decade, these payments [to the Palestinian “pay-for-slay” program] have amounted to more than $300 million annually. Last year, the PA’s payments increased by $1.3 million per month. The murder of Jews is what the European Union and many European countries have been funding.

By advocating a “two-state solution,” France, Canada and Britain are essentially authorizing a genocide.

Before reviving their idea, the French, Canadians and British need to look at the results of all of the polls. They consistently show that most Palestinians support Hamas and the armed struggle against Israel. The last thing Palestinians and Israelis need now is to transplant the failed Gaza model onto the West Bank.

As the Hamas-Israel war in the Gaza Strip enters its 20th month, France, Britain and Canada have revived the talk about the need to establish a Palestinian state. In a joint statement in mid-May, the leaders of the three countries proclaimed:

“We are committed to recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to achieving a two-state solution and are prepared to work with others to this end.”

Next month, the United Nations is scheduled to host an international conference, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, to advance the idea of a “two-state solution” between Israel and the Palestinians.

The So-Called Trump-Ramaphosa ‘Ambush’ Trump’s meeting with Ramaphosa was a long-overdue reality check on South Africa’s hostility, hypocrisy, and dependence on U.S. aid and trade. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2025/05/26/the-so-called-trump-ramaphosa-ambush/

othing highlights the poverty of the media-Democratic mind than its weary use of echo-chamber buzzwords. Once Pravda-like instructions are sent out from DNC operatives, mindless media anchors mouth them in lockstep as gospel.

So, it was with the supposed “ambush” when South African President Cyril Ramaphosa met Donald Trump. Trump indeed pressed his guest on a number of issues, from the decades-long targeted killing of white agriculturalists on their farms by black hit teams that have totaled somewhere between 1,500 and 3,500, depending on how one defines such targeted killings.

Trump further wanted an explanation from Ramaphosa on his government’s new legislation aimed at land confiscation without compensation, and the de facto vanishing number of Boer farmers.

Trump was further bewildered by Ramaphosa’s assertion that the new law would not be used to take private property without paying for it (“No, no, no, no. Nobody can take land”), when in fact that was the very purpose of the new legislation in the first place. Trump also showed Ramaphosa videos highlighting a resurgence of South African extremism of the tired “Kill the Boer” sort.

The dictionaries define “ambush” roughly as “a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a hidden or concealed position.”

Ramaphosa’s visit was no surprise. He, not Trump, requested it. Ramaphosa spoke openly to the media before the meeting that he was planning to convince Trump that there were neither widespread killings of white farmers nor arbitrary confiscation of land.

In sum, Trump was the host; Ramaphosa was the guest, who requested the meeting to present his case for a return of a number of concessions from the U.S. He knew Trump would raise issues that had estranged South Africa from both the president and Congress, and he was calmly prepped, as expected, to offer counterarguments.

But why was Ramaphosa so eager for a meeting?

Lyndon Johnson’s Disastrous War on Poverty America’s first war on a concept was an even more spectacular failure than the others. by Robert Spencer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/lyndon-johnsons-disastrous-war-on-poverty/

It was the age when administrations had slogans: Franklin Delano Roosevelt had the New Deal, Harry S. Truman the Fair Deal, and John F. Kennedy the New Frontier. Lyndon B. Johnson, not to be outdone, proclaimed that his administration would create the Great Society. In pursuit of that, in his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964, only six weeks after he had become president upon Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson proclaimed: “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” It was one of the biggest mistakes any American president ever made, and its damaging effects are still with us today.

Johnson proposed a broad range of social programs to accomplish this, including youth employment legislation, food stamps, expanded minimum wage laws, health insurance for the elderly, and housing and urban renewal programs. Much of this ambitious program was enacted and implemented. Federal spending rose to levels that had not been seen since World War II, and continued to rise ever after. Many of Johnson’s programs, although the nation had gotten along without them from 1776 until the mid-1960s, became, in the framing of Democrat propagandists, sacred rights that could never and must never be questioned.

Despite its sacred status in leftist mythology, however, the War on Poverty was a catastrophic failure. It has been a gargantuan exercise in applying the wrong solution to problems and only making them worse rather than solving them, yet the Democratic Party to this day is full of leaders who refuse to admit that it has been a defeat and a disaster and keep pushing to repeat its mistakes on an even larger scale.

The War on Poverty has cost American taxpayers over $22 trillion since 1964, over three times the cost of all the actual wars that the U.S. has ever fought. All that has resulted from it, however, is urban blight, nagging minority unemployment, and above all, more poverty.

Elbows up: Woe Canada by Diane Bederman

https://dianebederman.com/elbows-up-my-ass/

The Elbows Up campaign fooled Canadians and that led to too many Canadians voting for the Liberal libtards: again.

How many times do Canadians have to be hit in the head before they realize it’s time to say “No More”?

We are now learning that PM Mark Carney; appointed, installed, erected to his position, lied through his teeth. He lied about the tariffs. He talked the talk and crawled the walk. And now, because he only won a minority government, suddenly there are all these recounts and ALL of them are going Liberal. A playbook right from the Democrats. It isn’t going to work.

As a Boomer, I am appalled and disgusted that my age group voted Liberal, again. I spoke to 40 year old men with children who told me before the election that they thought Canada would be better for their children and grandchildren if Canada were to become 51st state. Now that’s a switch.  It has been said, if you vote Conservative when you are 20, you have no heart. If you vote Liberal when you are 40 you have no brain.

Trump was trolling. Do you really think Republicans want Canada? It is Liberal.

But Carney said he would be tough on Trump

“We must respond with both purpose and force,” Prime Minister Mark Carney said in response to American tariffs. Those comments were made on April 3 as Carney stood in Ottawa reacting to Donald Trump’s flurry of tariffs on his so-called “Liberation Day.” 

UK poured millions into aid program linked to Hamas-controlled group David Isaac

https://www.jns.org/uk-poured-millions-into-aid-program-linked-to-hamas-controlled-group/

The United Kingdom is one of the chief funders of Hamas, Israel’s Channel 12 “Weekend News” reported on Saturday night.

While a great deal of the money comes from private donations to so-called Muslim “charities,” the investigation revealed that the British government also funds the terrorist group. Admittedly, the money reaches Hamas indirectly, via UNICEF, but the British Foreign Office is aware of the terror connection, as evidenced in an internal 2022 report.

Hamas operates in the United Kingdom almost with impunity, reported Channel 12 journalist Omri Maniv, noting that Israel’s defense establishment refers to it as “Hamas’s financial capital in the West.”

“Britain is one of the three leading countries in the world in the volume of donations flowing from it to Hamas. The others are Muslim countries,” Maniv noted. “In fact, more than a quarter of non-state funding for the terrorist organization comes from the British Isles.”

But London also transfers tens of millions of pounds to Gaza, which ends up in the hands of the terrorist group.

“The British government is actually giving millions of pounds to the U.N., and especially to UNICEF, which works with the Ministry of Social Development in Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas,” Anne Herzberg, legal adviser at NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institute, told Channel 12.

According to a November 2022 document from the British Consulate-General in Jerusalem uncovered by NGO Monitor, “UK Humanitarian Support in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (FY 2022-2026),” the United Kingdom provided cash transfers to UNICEF, which works with the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Social Development (MoSD).

Tapper’s Book Condemns Journalists In More Ways Than One

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/05/27/tappers-book-condemns-journalists-in-more-ways-than-one/

The reaction to Jake Tapper’s and Alex Thompson’s book about how the White House “hid” Joe Biden’s mental decline has been brutal – and fittingly so. But their book inadvertently reveals something even worse about today’s corporate journalists.

Tapper and Thompson would have us believe that they were shocked! shocked! to discover that Biden was suffering serious and worsening mental infirmities while president, because the White House had so expertly hidden them. And that it was only through their intrepid reporting that the truth can now be told.

This is laughable on its face.

The stories the authors recount were all known by journalists all along. How else could they have churned out a book in a matter of months after Biden left office? Every story in that book, every one, was known to White House reporters who diligently refused to report them at the time. That includes “revelations” in the book such as that:

A small, tight-knit group in former President Joe Biden’s inner circle was running the White House like a ‘politburo,’ and they were the ‘ultimate decision-makers’ as Biden’s health and cognitive function continued to decline.

Tapper himself was one of the worst offenders. Just watch any of the long and damning collection of clips circulating on social media, like the one below, showing Tapper parroting White House talking points.

General Douglas MacArthur’s Farewell Speech Given to the Corps of Cadets at West Point May 12, 1962

General Douglas MacArthur’s Farewell Speech
Given to the Corps of Cadets at West Point
May 12, 1962
General Westmoreland, General Groves, distinguished guests, and gentlemen of the Corps.
As I was leaving the hotel this morning, a doorman asked me, “Where are you bound for,
General?” and when I replied, “West Point,” he remarked, “Beautiful place, have you ever
been there before?”
No human being could fail to be deeply moved by such a tribute as this, coming from a
profession I have served so long and a people I have loved so well. It fills me with an
emotion I cannot express. But this award is not intended primarily for a personality, but to
symbolize a great moral code – the code of conduct and chivalry of those who guard this
beloved land of culture and ancient descent. That is the meaning of this medallion. For all
eyes and for all time, it is an expression of the ethics of the American soldier. That I should
be integrated in this way with so noble an ideal arouses a sense of pride and yet of humility
which will be with me always.
Duty, Honor, Country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be,
what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when
courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create
hope when hope becomes forlorn. Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction,
that poetry of imagination, nor that brilliance of metaphor to tell you all that they mean.
The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every
pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am
sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even
to the extent of mockery and ridicule.
But these are some of the things they do. They build your basic character. They mold you
for your future roles as the custodians of the nation’s defense. They make you strong
enough to know when you are weak, and brave enough to face yourself when you are
afraid.
They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in
success; not to substitute words for action; not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the
stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have
compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have
a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to
reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never take yourself too
seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness; the open
mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength.
They give you a temperate will, a quality of imagination, a vigor of the emotions, a
freshness of the deep springs of life, a temperamental predominance of courage over
timidity, an appetite for adventure over love of ease. They create in your heart the sense of
wonder, the unfailing hope of what next, and the joy and inspiration of life. They teach you
in this way to be an officer and a gentleman.
And what sort of soldiers are those you are to lead? Are they reliable? Are they brave? Are
they capable of victory?
Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate
of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago, and has never changed. I
regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world’s noblest figures; not only as
one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless.
His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength,
his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or
from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy’s
breast.
But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his
modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He
belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He
belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and
freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements.
In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have
witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible
determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people.
From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I
listened to those songs of the glee club, in memory’s eye I could see those staggering
columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from
dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads; to
form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind
and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God.
I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died
unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we
would go on to victory. Always for them: Duty, Honor, Country. Always their blood, and
sweat, and tears, as they saw the way and the light.
And twenty years after, on the other side of the globe, against the filth of dirty foxholes, the
stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts, those boiling suns of the
relentless heat, those torrential rains of devastating storms, the loneliness and utter
desolation of jungle trails, the bitterness of long separation of those they loved and
cherished, the deadly pestilence of tropic disease, the horror of stricken areas of war.
Their resolute and determined defense, their swift and sure attack, their indomitable
purpose, their complete and decisive victory – always victory, always through the bloody
haze of their last reverberating shot, the vision of gaunt, ghastly men, reverently following
your password of Duty, Honor, Country.
The code which those words perpetuate embraces the highest moral laws and will stand the
test of any ethics or philosophies ever promulgated for the uplift of mankind. Its
requirements are for the things that are right, and its restraints are from the things that are
wrong. The soldier, above all other men, is required to practice the greatest act of religious
training – sacrifice. In battle and in the face of danger and death, he discloses those divine
attributes which his Maker gave when he created man in his own image. No physical
courage and no brute instinct can take the place of the Divine help which alone can sustain
him. However horrible the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer
and to give his life for his country, is the noblest development of mankind.
You now face a new world, a world of change. The thrust into outer space of the satellite,
spheres and missiles marked the beginning of another epoch in the long story of mankind –
the chapter of the space age. In the five or more billions of years the scientists tell us it has
taken to form the earth, in the three or more billion years of development of the human
race, there has never been a greater, a more abrupt or staggering evolution. We deal now
not with things of this world alone, but with the illimitable distances and as yet unfathomed
mysteries of the universe. We are reaching out for a new and boundless frontier. We speak
in strange terms: of harnessing the cosmic energy; of making winds and tides work for us;
of creating unheard synthetic materials to supplement or even replace our old standard
basics; of purifying sea water for our drink; of mining ocean floors for new fields of wealth
and food; of disease preventatives to expand life into the hundred of years; of controlling
the weather for a more equitable distribution of heat and cold, of rain and shine; of space
ships to the moon; of the primary target in war, no longer limited to the armed forces of an
enemy, but instead to include his civil populations; of ultimate conflict between a united
human race and the sinister forces of some other planetary galaxy; of such dreams and
fantasies as to make life the most exciting of all time.
And through all this welter of change and development your mission remains fixed,
determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is
but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purpose, all other public projects, all
other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishments; but you are
the ones who are trained to fight.
Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no
substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession
of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.
Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men’s
minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation’s war guardians, as its lifeguards
from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiators in the arena of battle. For a
century and a half you have defended, guarded and protected its hallowed traditions of
liberty and freedom, of right and justice.
Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether
our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism
grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by
crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists
grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should
be.
These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military
solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country.
You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense.
From your ranks come the great captains who hold the Nation’s destiny in their hands the
moment the war tocsin sounds.
The long gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in
brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic
words: Duty, Honor, Country.
This does not mean that you are warmongers. On the contrary, the soldier above all other
people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.
But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers:
“Only the dead have seen the end of war.”
The shadows are lengthening for me. The twilight is here. My days of old have vanished –
tone and tints. They have gone glimmering through the dreams of things that were. Their
memory is one of wondrous beauty, watered by tears and coaxed and caressed by the
smiles of yesterday. I listen then, but with thirsty ear, for the witching melody of faint
bugles blowing reveille, of far drums beating the long roll.
In my dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful
mutter of the battlefield. But in the evening of my memory I come back to West Point.
Always there echoes and re-echoes: Duty, Honor, Country.
Today marks my final roll call with you. But I want you to know that when I cross the river,
my last conscious thoughts will be of the Corps, and the Corps, and the Corps.
I bid you farewell.

When Doubts Take Wing Peter Smith

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/america/when-doubts-take-wing/

EXCERPT

I am an unabashed supporter of Trumpian policies. However, as a conservative, my allegiance is to the truth so far as I can find it. I have had no problem squaring the two until Trump’s Middle Eastern soiree.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of Trumpian policies, which are truly embraceable by those like me with a conservative mindset.

♦ Immigration: namely, closing the southern border, deporting criminal illegal immigrants, opposing birthright citizenship.

♦ Economic: namely, cutting wasteful government expenditure, lowering taxes, reducing regulations, imposing selective tariffs.

♦ Social: namely, ridding America of DEI and transgender activism (or trying to), defunding universities which promote or tolerate anti-Semitic thuggery, preventing social media platforms from censoring free speech.

♦ Foreign: namely, supporting Israel to the hilt, trying to end the slaughter in Ukraine, encouraging NATO members to stump up more for their own defense.

Now, suddenly, unwelcomely, I have my first significant qualms. This is not just to prove Bolt wrong, which he most definitely is, but as a reminder that human failings miss no one, not even Trump in his pomp.

First the plane from Qatar. It is quite silly beyond belief to think that this can take the place of Air Force One or Two and then form part of Trump’s presidential library when his term ends. The timing doesn’t work for a start. Boeing hasn’t delivered on a new plane precisely because of the complications of making a passenger plane into a presidential plane with all its additional features. As for the library part, the mind boggles. Maybe the plane could be converted into a troop carrier. Does the US need a troop carrier from Qatar?