Trump Spars With Rude Univision Reporter, Kicks Him Out, Lets Him Back In

Did you catch this?

(CNN) Jorge Ramos, the Univision anchor and journalist, extensively squabbled with Donald Trump twice in testy exchanges at a news conference before his rally here in Dubuque, with a security officer at one point ejecting Ramos from the event.

“Go back to Univision,” Trump told Ramos early in their first back-and-forth. Ramos had attempted to engage with Trump on his positions though he had not been called upon, standing and lobbing concerns about Trump’s plan at the candidate.

“Sit down. Sit down. Sit down,” Trump said.

Ramos started his schtick immediately at the start of the press conference, and hadn’t been called on. Trump asked him to wait his turn, giving Ramos a chance to be civil. Ramos wasn’t, so, he was escorted out. He was later allowed back in, and Trump engaged him for a goodly chunk of time. Via Twitchy, we get this nice, long video

Trump went on to kick Ramos’s butt afterwards, during the time he allowed Ramos to ask questions.

Meanwhile, the press was chided for not walking out on Trump. And Patterico notes that the media and Democrats are making this out to be a SCANDAL! Liberals are Very Upset. Because only Trump would do something like this!

President Barack Obama has faced his share of hecklers in the past seven years, but Wednesday he took on one at a gay pride month reception at the White House, scolding the protester for being disrespectful “in my house.”

The heckler had interrupted Obama’s remarks by protesting the detention and deportation of gay, lesbian and transgender immigrants.

Obama gave the person a chance to be civil, then had them escorted out. Where was the national outcry? Nor was this the first time. He’s had hecklers escorted out numerous times. Where was the national outcry over Hillary roping reporters in?

Read: Trump Spars With Rude Univision Reporter, Kicks Him Out, Lets Him Back In »

Left-leaning The Week Tries To Tell Us Why We Oppose The Iran Deal

This is Stage 5 of The 8 Stages Of Liberal/Progressive Discussion When They Are Busted: “Concoct strange defenses based on wild psychological discourse, which no one understands, including the writer, but it sounds good, and allows a liberal/progressive to say there is no problem.” In this case, The Week writer Damon Linker attempts to project that psychological discourse on conservatives, or, as he sneeringly writes numerous times ” neocons”

The real reason hawks hate the Iran nuclear deal

….(a long whine about Dick Cheney)….

Like most pundits pronouncing on the deal, I possess no special expertise about Iran, and I’m not privy to the intelligence assessments that world leaders get to see. All I have to go on is who’s lining up for and against the deal, and the arguments they make. And this is what I see:

On the pro side, we have Brent Scowcroft, Fareed Zakaria, dozens of former Israeli military officials, dozens of retired American generals and admirals, a wide array of experts on nuclear non-proliferation, and the president of the United States.

On the anti side, we have Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who has been warning ominously about an imminent Iranian nuclear breakout since — and no, I’m not joking — 1992), every Republican running for president and just about every Republican in Congress (though they’re quite comfortable displaying their ignorance of the deal’s details and the rudiments of Middle East policy and diplomacy), every single neoconservative pundit who was every bit as certain that we just hadto go to war to take out Saddam Hussein, and now the vice president who orchestrated the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which by this point onlyfools and ideologues deny was a blunder of world-historical proportions.

Mr. Linker forgot the roughly 57% of the American people oppose the deal. 56% say Congress should reject the deal. And the numbers get worse as we learn more and more about the deal.

Here’s where it gets fun. And weird

But such empirical considerations are beside the point. Facts have nothing to do with why most opponents reject the deal. They reject it because of an a priori suspicion of diplomacy and negotiation, which prevails in all times and places, regardless of the circumstances.

See? It’s so simple! All those people mentioned, and the people polled which aren’t mentioned, are against the deal because they’re against negotiation and diplomacy! It’s so simple. It has nothing to do with the deal kicking the can down the road. Or that it would be damned near impossible to “snap-back” the sanctions. Nor that Iran will block US citizens from being part of any inspections. Or that inspections can take weeks to start. Or that the Iranians will be allowed to inspect their own military nuclear facility. Or that Iran has stated it will ignore weapons and missile bans. Or that the deal will allow Iran to become flush with cash, which will go to terrorism and attack on US citizens. Or, etc and so on.

Nope, it must be because we don’t like diplomacy and negotiations!

The screed leads to this NY Times op-ed, arguing the same thing. Of course, both articles are meant to deflect attention away from the reality of this being a bad deal. Which it is. Period.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Left-leaning The Week Tries To Tell Us Why We Oppose The Iran Deal »

Surprise: Carbon Trading Scheme Increased Emissions

There was cheating involved. Can you imagine that?

(Politico) A flawed scheme that allowed companies to earn tradable carbon credits for projects supposed to abate industrial gases actually created a “perverse” incentive to generate more waste, leading to an increase in global emissions instead of cuts, according to a new study.

The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) found that the credits may have increased emissions by as much as 600 million tons of carbon dioxide.

“What was shocking for us was the extent of the problem — we didn’t expect that it would be so big,” said Anja Kollmuss, an SEI associate who led the study.

The study could create problems for global climate talks later this year because they undercut the credibility of carbon trading schemes, one of the most popular ways of using market mechanisms to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

One of the most popular among people who a) want to increase the size and scope of the government, b) want to redistribute Other People’s wealth, and c), refuse to make changes within their own lives to go carbon neutral.

Virtually every carbon trading scheme is failing because the cost of the credits has collapsed to “junk bond” status. And those who are forced to participate work to find ways around them, as well as pass on the costs to the consumers.

The worst offenders were in Ukraine and Russia, where the system was riddled with corruption, the Stockholm authors wrote in an article published Monday by the Nature Climate Change journal. They noted “perverse effects” that had the operators of three chemical plants removing safeguards and increasing the production of powerful greenhouse gases to earn more lucrative credits.

“If you produced more greenhouse gases only to destroy them and generate more carbon credits, you would essentially be damaging the climate for profit,” said Lambert Schneider, an SEI associate and co-author of the study.

So, the carbon trading scheme enticed the companies to engage in bad behavior. Where were the government bureaucrats?

Read: Surprise: Carbon Trading Scheme Increased Emissions »

If All You See…

…is a place that would be perfect for showing Al Gore’s climate change movie, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Camp Of The Saints, with a post on Hillary being a “victim”.

Read: If All You See… »

Say, Could The California Drought Be The New Normal?

Members of the Cult of Climastology love trotting out phrases such as “the new normal”. They’ve used it for many issues, such as after the big hurricane season of 2005, where they predicted it would be the new normal, and then landfalling hurricane activity fell to the floor. They claimed that the drought in Australia would be the new normal. Then said that the flood conditions would be the new normal, when Australia started seeing lots of rain.

Editorial: California drought could be the new normal

Reports of California’s demise are as predictable as they are exaggerated whenever the Golden State endures one of its regular disasters.

Earthquakes, fires, floods, the Great Recession and more strike, and we survive. But two reports on the drought last week ought to give us pause about how we use and misuse water, even as a third in the journal Geophysical Research Letters drives home the bad news about global warming, estimating that climate change has worsened California’s drought by up to 20 percent.

The Public Policy Institute of California raised the what-if possibility that the drought could persist. If so, more wells will run dry, leaving the low-income rural San Joaquin Valley dependent on emergency supplies.

Eighteen species of fish face extinction, including trout and salmon. Birds are threatened as Pacific Flyway wetlands wither. Wildfires are fiercer; some conifer forests could be lost forever. And even if a drenching El Niño comes to pass, the PPIC predicts a new, dryer, normal.

“The combination of low flows and high temperatures make this a ‘drought of the future’ – the type of drought California is increasingly likely to experience as the region’s climate warms,” the report says.

Expect California to soon go to flood conditions as Warmists push this meme.

And there’s still no hard, scientific proof that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by Mankind.

Read: Say, Could The California Drought Be The New Normal? »

Latest Pro-Iran Deal Argument: It Makes It Easier To Bomb Iran!

Has it come to this?

The ultimate argument in favor of the Iran deal
The agreement would make it easier to bomb Iran, administration officials have told lawmakers.

Want to bomb Iran? Then support the nuclear deal.

That’s the provocative argument coming from Obama administration officials and other backers of the deal as they promote it before a crucial vote in Congress next month.

In meetings on Capitol Hill and with influential policy analysts, administration officials argue that inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities under the deal will reveal important details that can be used for better targeting should the U.S. decide to attack Iran.

Oh, it will be totally easier when the US inspects the Iranian sites. Except for the military one, which is in the secret side deal and Iran will “self report”. If the US is actually even allowed to be involved with any inspections

On Monday, Iran’s deputy foreign minister said that Iran’s intelligence service would have to approve any IAEA inspectors seeking access the country. The nuclear deal already states that Iran “will generally allow the designation of inspectors from nations that have diplomatic relations with Iran,” apparently excluding Americans from the IAEA team.

So, mostly we’ll have access to 2nd hand information, since it seems Iran won’t allow American inspectors.

If supporters are trotting out this argument, they must know how bad the deal is and how bad they are losing the argument.

Read: Latest Pro-Iran Deal Argument: It Makes It Easier To Bomb Iran! »

“Fiesty” Obama Calls GOP “Crazies”, Attacks Koch Brothers

Is it any wonder I call Obama “not my president”? Has there ever been a US president who has attacked his political opponents in such a personal and degrading manner? Has Obama ever considered that people find no reason to work with him when he attacks them in such a manner? Of course, it is interesting that he refuses to attack enemies, such as Iran and its leaders, in such a manner

(AP) President Barack Obama is putting people on notice: He’s back from vacation feeling “refreshed, renewed, recharged” — and “a little feisty.”

He immediately showed his feisty side.

At a Democratic fundraiser Monday night in Nevada, Obama declared himself ready for the challenges he faces this fall in dealing with a Republican Congress that disagrees with him on the budget, energy policy, education and much more.

Obama said that as he’d ridden to the fundraiser with Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, they’d done some reminiscing and spent some time “figuring out how we are going to deal with the crazies in terms of managing some problems.”

He spent quite a bit of time attacking the GOP, especially the duly elected majority in Congress. Great way to entice them to work with Obama, wouldn’t you say?

But Obama spoke at length about his differences with the GOP Congress. And he lamented that “too often, our political debates are not about what’s best for the country but what’s best for the next election.”

Self-awareness fail: he was at a Democratic fundraiser. Neither Obama nor Reid are running for re-election, yet, they seem to be thinking about what’s best for the next election, rather than what’s best for the country.

He also attacked, yet again, the Koch Brothers, private citizens both

(Fox News) President Obama accused critics of his energy policies of trying to restrict consumers from accessing solar power, wind power and other alternative energy sources at a green energy conference in Las Vegas Monday night.

The president specifically singled out billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, who are major donors to Republican political candidates. He accused them, along with “big fossil fuel interests” and “conservative think tanks”, of ideological inconsistency, saying that they champion free market solutions except when the free market boosts renewable energy.

“It’s one thing if you’re consistent in being free market,” Obama said. “It’s another thing when you’re free market until it’s solar that’s working and people want to buy and suddenly you’re not for it anymore. That’s a problem.”

I wonder if Obama will attack George Soros, one of the main patrons of the Democratic Party, who just bought quite a bit of stock in several coal companies. As for free market, solar and wind would not survive without massive subsidies and loans and grants and such from Government.

By the way, this fundraiser was also about “clean energy” and “climate change”, yet he fired up fossil fueled Air Force 1 to fly to Las Vegas, along with the typical 18 fossil fueled vehicles motorcade.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: “Fiesty” Obama Calls GOP “Crazies”, Attacks Koch Brothers »

Surprise: EPA Chief Admits Obama Power Plan Will Harm Low-Income Folks

They will be hardest hit

(MRC) While discussing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, administrator Gina McCarthy admitted who would be hit the “hardest” by the federal climate regulations.

“We know that low-income minority communities would be hardest hit,” McCarthy said.

She prefaced her statement by saying that the cost increases to Americans as a result of the regulations would be, “at most, a gallon of milk a month increase out the gate which tapers off to incredible savings by 2013 (WT note: that’s a typo, she said 2030).”

Ms. McCarthy didn’t explain how she came up with that particular assessment.

No, she didn’t. One estimate from NERA, which opposes Obama’s Clean Power Plan, has energy costs rising 12-17%. The Energy Information Administration estimates a 4% increase by 2030. Remember, any increases in energy costs circulate through the economy. The end user isn’t just paying more for energy at home, but also in the cost of goods and services, as they pay more.

Now, in worse case scenario, this could make the average bill rise $240 a year. Cult of Climastrology members will certainly think this is no big deal, as they sip cocktails at fancy parties, but, for poor people, this is real money. Especially as other costs rise.

(Prospect Magazine) But energy efficiency programs won’t save low- and fixed-income families. While the median family spends about 5 cents out of every dollar on energy costs, low-income families spend about 20 cents of every dollar.

It should be noted that, first, things never seem to work out as well as government employees and politicians say they will. How many times has a government program exploded costs? How many times has a project suddenly exploded into cost over-runs? In 1965, Medicare was estimated to cost $9 billion a year by 1990. The actual 1990 cost? $67 billion. All the social net programs, such as Welfare and SNAP (food stamps), had estimates much lower than originally thought. Rarely does a government program, rule, and/or regulation actually end up cost what they estimate, or lower.

Second, it should be noted that much of the CPP plan anticipates that consumers will use much less power. Probably because it will have become much more expensive, not because of efficiency.

Oh, and the overall outcome for this power plan? A supposed global temperature reduction of fifteen one-thousandths of a degree by 2100.

Read: Surprise: EPA Chief Admits Obama Power Plan Will Harm Low-Income Folks »

If All You See…

…is a horrible polluting burger, causing temps to spike, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Da Tech Guy, with a post on the contrast between the Iran deal and the Paris train takedown.

Read: If All You See… »

Bernie Sanders Seems Upset That Other People Use Fossil Fuels

How much in the way of fossil fuels does it take to run a presidential campaign, what with criss-crossing the country on planes and buses, heading to events in vehicles?

If this was enacted, how would politicians like Bernie travel? Oh, right, this doesn’t actually apply to himself. Only Other People.

I’m not expecting a reply.

Read: Bernie Sanders Seems Upset That Other People Use Fossil Fuels »

Bad Behavior has blocked 3660 access attempts in the last 7 days.