Media Freaks Over Trump Dumping Koi Food, Claims International Incident

By William Teach November 7, 2017 – 5:03 pm

It’s a good thing we have a totally unbiased and impartial media, eh?

(Daily Caller)  A number of journalists on Twitter lambasted President Donald Trump for pouring an entire box of food into a pond of precious Japanese koi, some even suspecting that amount of food could damage the fish.

As the meme spread through social media, other users joined in teasing Trump for improper conduct during the photo-op on his first state visit to Japan, until full video of the incident came out showing Trump was just following the example of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Many were giving Trump a hassle over this, even going so far as

https://twitter.com/zackwhittaker/status/927398233143414784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

“Diplomatic incident.” Of course, then we get the reality, below the fold

Read More »

Read: Media Freaks Over Trump Dumping Koi Food, Claims International Incident »

Posted in Donald Trump, Wonky Media | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 7, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible carbon pollution infused beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Gay Patriot, with a post on the party of science

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

There’s Only One Solution To Mass Shootings Or Something

By William Teach November 7, 2017 – 10:30 am

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump thinks he’s found it, in what is supposed to be a straight news article, but goes down the opinion road

There’s only one surefire answer to the problem of mass shootings

(He goes through a lot of this and that and the other, blaming White men, not blaming White men (while refusing to acknowledge the mass shootings committed by Islamists, as well as Black in origin shootings), going on about mental health, violence towards women, and even notes that just 14 of 33 mass shootings were by White males. Leading to)

But the picture also suggests there isn’t necessarily a consistent pattern in the characteristics of a mass shooter. If the goal is to prevent future mass shootings, it’s tricky to see where to apply leverage. The only overwhelmingly common characteristic is that the perpetrators were men — but neither gender nor race could form the basis of a ban on gun ownership.

And Bump comes to the realization

In other words, the only surefire way to help prevent mass shootings — or any shootings — is to broadly limit access to guns in general. During the shooting in Sutherland Springs, Trump was in Japan. Last year, as many people died from gun violence in the entire country of Japan as died in the Texas shooting over the weekend (including Kelley). (snip)

Advocates for reducing gun violence, then, are left in an unfortunate position. There are often warning signs that can be addressed before a shooter decides to open fire, but there often aren’t. There are demographic factors that seem to recur — but not universally. The one consistent factor is that the shooter has access to a firearm, and that’s perhaps the one factor that has proven politically impossible to overcome.

Politically impossible, because we have a 2nd Amendment, unlike Japan (which Bump mentions). Regardless, it’s always about disarming Citizens with Leftists.

Read: There’s Only One Solution To Mass Shootings Or Something »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Who’s Up For UN Climate Talks That Have A “Toxic Background” Of Sexual Harassment?

By William Teach November 7, 2017 – 7:20 am

Yes, it is that time of the year where over ten thousand members of the Cult of Climastrology will take long fossil fueled trips to a fun vacation spot, where they’ll dine on great food, see some great sites, and work towards enacting bigger taxes, bigger fees, bigger government, and more and more control over the lives of Other People. The Bonn conference runs from the 6-17 of November, and is presided over by the government of Fiji, which is not present by Skype, you know

(Daily Caller) United Nations climate talks have a “toxic” history of sexual harassment, according to a veteran environmental lawyer.

Lawyer Farhana Yamin wrote an essay on her experience with sexual harassment at UN climate summits, arguing “the trivialization of women continues.” UN delegates kicked off a major climate summit in Bonn, Germany on Monday.

Yamin said it’s impossible to know how rampant sexual harassment is at male-dominated UN climate talks because “apart from informal whisper networks that keep women safe, it largely goes unreported.”

It’s not truly shocking. Remember, the CoC constantly talks about how women will be the hardest hit from Hotcoldwetdry, and find that the answer is to make women more dependent on Government, because Warmists think that women aren’t able to take care of themselves, because they’re women.

Obviously, Harvey Weinstein is mentioned in the article, so, this may well be a ” yeah, this is occurring here, too” thing, like how all the other Progressive leaning people are being exposed

“I’ve been privy to many unaired and hushed conversations over the last three decades of my life as a climate change lawyer and know for a fact that many incidents have been brushed under the carpet,” Yamin wrote for Climate Home News.

“I too have kept quiet about my share of painful experiences, especially as a young woman,” Yamin wrote. “These range from unwelcome comments on my appearance to being made to feel as though I had to choose between my dignity and my career. Such incidents left me in a jumble of nerves or seething, sometimes both.”

The UN IPCC is attempting to set a tone that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. Now, of course. They aren’t worried about the past. Let’s not forget that the former head, Rajendra Pachauri, has been accused of sexual harassment by multiple women.

“In climate negotiations, there is an additional set of problems in that many instances of harassment are from men from other delegations or constituencies whose actions are not covered by any kind of workplace policy or legal process,” Yamin wrote.

“And allegations of sexual misconduct might lead to a diplomatic incident if the parties concerned are from different countries – adding another pressure on victims to keep quiet,” Yamin wrote.

“On a personal front, as a first step I am urging women who have experience of harassment and abuse to share their experiences and help each other speak up,” she wrote. “Men too must stop the culture of silence and trivialization which makes them complicit.”

Why do Warmists like to harass women so much? Why are they not letting women in to their club?

Read: Who’s Up For UN Climate Talks That Have A “Toxic Background” Of Sexual Harassment? »

Posted in Global Warming, UN | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Seems Surprised That Apple, Others, Would Search For Places With Lowest Tax Rates

By William Teach November 7, 2017 – 7:02 am

The NY Times’ Jesse Drucker and Simon Bowers have done some research on the Internet, and are rather incensed that Apple and other companies would dare to “swindle” governments out of money. Along the way, they rather make the point for Trump that the corporate tax rate drives business away

After a Tax Crackdown, Apple Found a New Shelter for Its Profits

Tim Cook was angry.

It was May 2013, and Mr. Cook, the chief executive of Apple, appeared before a United States Senate investigative subcommittee. After a lengthy inquiry, the committee found that the company had avoided tens of billions of dollars in taxes by shifting profits into Irish subsidiaries that the panel’s chairman called “ghost companies.”

“We pay all the taxes we owe, every single dollar,” Mr. Cook declared at the hearing. “We don’t depend on tax gimmicks,” he went on. “We don’t stash money on some Caribbean island.”

True enough. The island Apple would soon rely on was in the English Channel.

Five months after Mr. Cook’s testimony, Irish officials began to crack down on the tax structure Apple had exploited. So the iPhone maker went hunting for another place to park its profits, newly leaked records show. With help from law firms that specialize in offshore tax shelters, the company canvassed multiple jurisdictions before settling on the small island of Jersey, which typically does not tax corporate income.

What Drucker and Bowers found in their Internet search (because this was apparently published by the German paper Süddeutsche Zeitung first) is that Apple has more than $128 billion in offshore accounts that the U.S. can’t touch. Most of it was, get this, made while Obama was president. You know, the guy Apple supported. The guy who was espousing SJW stuff that Apple agreed with. The guy was yammering on about companies paying their fair share, which Apple agreed with. Well, on paper, anyhow, not in practice.

In fact, you look at the list of the big companies who are sheltering money overseas, and it very much reads like a list of the Democrats top donors. Not all, of course, but, the top 5 are Apple, Pfizer, Microsoft, General Electric, and Google, not exactly Conservative leaning companies, eh? Facebook, likewise, has much residing in offshore accounts.

“U.S. multinational firms are the global grandmasters of tax avoidance schemes that deplete not just U.S. tax collection but the tax collection of most every large economy in the world,” said Edward D. Kleinbard, a former corporate tax adviser to such companies who is now a law professor at the University of Southern California.

If the rates are too high, and they have the ability to shelter earnings, they’re going to do it. If you had a way to legally shelter thousands of dollars, would you do it? Of course you would.

Indeed, tax strategies like the ones used by Apple — as well as Amazon, Google, Starbucks and others — cost governments around the world as much as $240 billion a year in lost revenue, according to a 2015 estimate by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Interesting. First, they are all Liberal companies. Second, they do not cost government anything. The governments cost themselves, much in the same way a company costs itself if it raises its prices to a point where consumers take their business elsewhere.

The disclosures come on the heels of last week’s proposals by Republican lawmakers to provide several new tax benefits for multinational companies, including cutting the federal corporate income tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent. President Trump has said that American businesses are getting a bad deal under current rules.

But the documents show how major American companies find creative ways to avoid paying anything close to 35 percent.

So, lowering the rate might well keep a bigger portion of that money from going overseas to places like Jersey. And the GOP has proposed a 10% tax on profits earned overseas, in order to attempt to get some of the money to come back to the U.S. Let’s not forget, what’s being sheltered overseas was mostly earned from overseas. Not all, mind you. Essentially, companies with the means are going to look for ways to pay as little in taxes as they can, much in the same way that Mr. Obama took advantage of every bit of the tax code to pay as little in taxes as he could. And like the NY Times does.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Seems Surprised That Apple, Others, Would Search For Places With Lowest Tax Rates »

Posted in Taxation | Comments Off on NY Times Seems Surprised That Apple, Others, Would Search For Places With Lowest Tax Rates | Trackback URL

Hospitals Are Killing Thousands From ‘Climate Change’ Each Year Or Something

By William Teach November 6, 2017 – 5:05 pm

Hey, here’s a good idea: let’s make hospitals use unreliable energy sources that can only operate when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing within a certain range, because that’s super good for the environment

Hospitals are helping make us all sick
Greenhouse gas emissions from health care will be responsible for the loss of thousands of years of life.

….

As temperatures go up due to climate change, extreme weather events (like Hurricane Maria and Hurricane Harvey) become more frequent, and more intense. Warmer temperatures are also a public health problem in and of themselves, aiding the spread of infectious diseases and increasing rates of malnutrition. The changing climate is going to make people sick.

And the healthcare system in the United Sates—which is supposed to keep people healthy—is partially to blame.

Between powering facilities, manufacturing medical supplies, creating pharmaceuticals, and other activities, the U.S. healthcare system is responsible for a solid chunk of the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change; it released the equivalent of 614 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2013, and around 10 percent of the total emissions in the United States. (snip)

Sherman and her collaborator, Matthew Eckelman, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northeastern University, wanted to put a number on the damage of healthcare emissions in a form familiar to healthcare professionals. Based on a series of calculations, they determined that the contribution to climate change by the institutions trying to protect your health will be responsible for the loss of 123,000 to 381,000 years of healthy life in the future. The results were published in the American Journal of Public Health in October.

These people are so full of mule fritters it’s hard to understand how they don’t explode. And how they sleep at night with this garbage.

I wonder if these same idiots will stop using fossil fueled ambulances? Oh, hey, what about all the doctors buying into this? Will they give up their own fossil fuels usage? Stop playing golf? Operate by erratic ER lights?

Read: Hospitals Are Killing Thousands From ‘Climate Change’ Each Year Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 6, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is heat created snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on another reason Trump was elected.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Warmist Is Super Enthused To Create A Climate Dictatorship

By William Teach November 6, 2017 – 10:30 am

It’s always interesting how they tell us that the climate scam is about Science!!!!!, yet their solutions tend to focus on bigger and bigger, stronger and stronger, more controlling government, eh? Climate Depot links to this article, which, when translated, reads

Jørgen Randers, professor of climate strategy at BI Norwegian Business School: “If people don’t want my preferred solution, then people are stupid, shouldn’t be allowed to decide their fate, and we should install a climate dictatorship instead.” – “The advantage is that once decision is made, everything goes quickly. There is no opposition fighting back” is representative of Jørgen Randers’ argument, but actually comes from the same article from Anders Wijkman, who’s spokesperson for the Club of Rome, of which Randers is member of their executive committee.

Climate Depot links to Bjorn Lomborg, who writes

Now Professor Randers — correctly – tells us that democracy is unwilling and unable to pay the exorbitant amounts that he and many other environmentalists are asking us to pay. Surveys of willingness to pay for climate policies show most people in the US are willing to pay $180 per household or $70 per person. In China, the average willingness to pay is $30 per person per year. (They would all rather use it on education, health, poverty alleviation etc.)

Yet, the current Paris promises will cost each American $500 per year, each European $600 and each Chinese $170. Of course, most Americans and Europeans are unlikely to elect leaders that will actually incur a much larger cost than most people are willing to pay.

Moreover, these promises will not *solve* global warming – indeed, they will together achieve almost nothing: By the UN’s own estimate, the Paris Treaty will reduce emissions by less than 1% of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2°C and yet cost $1-2 trillion per year by 2030, mostly in reduced GDP growth. So Paris will deliver far less than what most people expect, yet will cost much more than most people are willing to pay. (snip)

But Randers instead takes this unwillingness to spend fortunes on little benefits as an argument for ending democracy. ‘if people don’t want my preferred solution, then people are stupid, shouldn’t be allowed to decide their fate, and we should install a climate dictatorship instead.’ The argument literally seems to be: If I can’t have my way in a democracy, I want my way with a dictatorship.

Loborg notes that people have asked for forms of dictatorship in the past, and it generally doesn’t work out very well. Most Warmists aren’t going as far as Randers, but, they certainly do want to enable government that is extremely controlling, one that will dictate what we do, what we buy, how many kids we can have, what we eat, what forms of transportation we may use and where we may travel, where we live, what we think, all while taking more and more money from us while raising our cost of living. Interestingly, Warmists never think these things will affect themselves negatively. They also mostly refuse to live the carbon neutral life they want everyone else to live.

Read: Warmist Is Super Enthused To Create A Climate Dictatorship »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats May Force Government Shutdown In Order To Protect Illegal Aliens

By William Teach November 6, 2017 – 7:34 am

These same Democrats that are against the tax bill, which would put more money back in the pockets of American citizens, including the middle class, while increasing the jobs market (and, yes, the bill isn’t 100% good, there are issues with it, as well), are stoked to attempt to protect people who came to this country in contradiction of U.S. law

(The Hill) Lawmakers are gearing up for an end-of-year fight over a key Obama-era immigration program, raising the chances of a government shutdown.

Senate Republicans and President Trump agreed during a closed-door White House meeting on Thursday that they would oppose addressing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as part of the December funding legislation.

But that stance is unacceptable to Democrats and their immigration allies, who want Congress to pass a legislative fix before going home for Christmas.

The fight over undocumented immigrants brought into the country as children is emerging as the largest hurdle to avoiding a government shutdown after Dec. 8.

Democrats believe they have leverage to demand an immigration deal going into the end-of-year negotiations because GOP leadership will likely need their votes to keep the government open.

They are going to work hard to make sure that the funding bill addresses the plight of the illegal alien Dreamers. They most likely won’t be able to stop it in the House, where the GOP has enough members to pass a budget without the Democrats, but, they could gum up the works a bit, and can certainly create major problems in the Senate, where they can filibuster and budget bill.

Won’t that look great? Filibustering the funding of the U.S. government in order to protect illegal aliens.

You know, though, that the media and Democrats will blame the GOP for any shutdown. They question now is whether Republicans will stay strong in the face of Typical Democratic Party behavior. The caterwauling, the blamestorming, the name calling, the hysteria. All over people who shouldn’t even be in the country to start with.

Here’s a recommendation: the GOP should put the SUCCEED Act in the funding bill. It’s tough but fair. Let Democrats show that they want to support illegal aliens over Americans. Or, Republicans could put a simple provision in the funding bill that would allow Dreamers to become permanent legal residents eventually, as I wrote back on September 4

Congress puts DACA into law, but allows 4 year renewals, rather than 2 years, in order to decrease burden on federal agencies. Just like with people who are applying for citizenship, any serious crimes can be cause to cancel an illegals legal status and deport them. And, yes, even DUIs may be considered cause, just like with those applying for citizenship. After 12 years, they can go through the same process as those applying for citizenship in order to attempt to earn full citizenship.

BUT, if we aren’t going to lay the “sins” of the parent(s) on the children, we are going to lay them on the parent(s). In order to obtain DACA status, the parent(s) must self deport, and provide proof at an immigration checkpoint as they leave. They are not allowed back in the United States for 2 years, and then only for a short visit. If they are caught residing in the U.S., or attempting to enter the country illegally, the children will have their DACA status ended and will be deported. After 12 years, they would be allowed to apply for temporary resident status, conditioned on speaking English and having good moral character. This seems fair. The parents broke our laws.

If you don’t agree with punishing the parents, then you’re simply using DACA to create a backdoor amnesty for all.

This would also put a stop to chain migration. of course, Democrats will accept nothing less than citizenship for the Dreamers and the people who brought them and chain migration.

Read: Democrats May Force Government Shutdown In Order To Protect Illegal Aliens »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Democrats May Force Government Shutdown In Order To Protect Illegal Aliens | Trackback URL

In Wake Of Texas Massacre, Of Course Democrats Are Calling For Gun Control

By William Teach November 6, 2017 – 7:10 am

 

It’s kinda in their blood. Because we know that draconian gun laws have worked very well in places like California, New Jersey, and Chicago, right?

(Daily Caller) Many Democratic U.S. senators called for stronger gun control hours after a shooter opened fire during a Sunday service at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, killing at least 27 people and wounding several others.

The alleged gunman, identified as 26-year-old Devin Kelley, entered the church around 11:30 a.m. local time dressed in tactical gear and a mask, and unloaded “clip after clip” of rounds from a semi-automatic weapon, according to police and witnesses.

You get things like this from Democrats

There are tweets from Patrick Leahy, Cory Booker, Kirstin Gillibrand, Ben Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Dianne Feinstein. And then there’s Excitable Kamala Harris

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) called for gun control after a mass shooting at a Texas church left multiple people dead Sunday.

“Senseless gun violence has torn apart another community — this time in a house of worship. When do we say enough is enough?” Harris tweeted.

Of course she did. Will she and the others be giving up their own firearms and/or armed protection?

What is the most interesting is that while Democrats are super enthused to implement gun restrictions that won’t stop criminals but will disarm people trying to protect themselves …. the Texas nutjob was engaged by a lawful gun owner. It’s not clear yet if the nutjob was killed by the return fire or of a self inflicted shot … they are utterly opposed to restricting the importation of people from Muslim nations that are ripe with extremism. They are loathe to even name all these Islamist killers as Muslims. They refuse to link incidents where the killer yells “Allahu Akbar” to Islam. They blame the gun, but, won’t blame the religion.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: In Wake Of Texas Massacre, Of Course Democrats Are Calling For Gun Control »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barking Moonbats, Current Affairs, Democrats | 32 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove