Bummer: France Says Trump Is Not Invited To December Climate Scam Meeting

Have you noticed the big coverage of the latest UN IPCC climate meeting, known as COP23? In reality, it opened Monday, and has been relegated to back page news by most of the big news outlets. We do get fun things like this

We also learned that African campaigners want the U.S. kicked out of the COP23 scam meeting. Guess they’re upset that Trump isn’t going to give them all that sweet, sweet, climate scam cash. And France is having a hissy fit over a meeting scheduled for December

(The Hill) President Trump is reportedly not invited to the climate change summit that will be held later this year in France.

An official in French President Emmanuel Macron’s Cabinet said Trump is “for the time being” not invited to the event in Paris, Reuters reported.

“The United States have a bit of a special status for that summit,” the official said, according to Reuters.

The summit — scheduled for Dec. 12 — will include more than 100 countries and nongovernmental organizations.

First off, I’m not sure Trump really cares, nor will he care that only lower level functionairies will be invited from the U.S. And, if he feels like showing up, he’ll do just that, and dare France to stop him. And probably remind France who saved their bacon twice last century.

Second, what, exactly, is the point of hold a climate scam meeting a month after the U.N. one currently going on in Bonn? And why can’t they do this by conference call in order to save all the “carbon pollution”? Oh, right, right, it’s a nice taxpayer funded working vacation, and, heck, who wouldn’t want another one right after Bonn?

Read: Bummer: France Says Trump Is Not Invited To December Climate Scam Meeting »

The Problem Isn’t Gun Laws, It’s Government Incompetence

Obviously, in the wake of the Texas church shooting, Leftists (who often refuse to give up their own guns and/or their armed security) are again calling for lots and lots of gun control, right up to draconian restrictions and even a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The Mercury News notes

It’s difficult to keep guns away from ex-cons and the mentally disturbed, but a one-of-a-kind California program is designed to do just that. And in light of the Texas church shooting that left 26 dead, some are debating whether a program like it could have thwarted Devin Kelley’s murderous rampage.

The Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) program, proposed in 1999 and updated in 2006, makes California the first and only state in the country to establish an automated system for tracking firearm owners and to provide the legal authority to proactively disarm convicted criminals, people with certain mental illnesses, and others deemed dangerous.

There’s a few problems with this. First, criminals still get guns. Because they’re criminals. And felons are barred from firearm ownership by every state and the federal government. Who is deemed “dangerous”? That could very much be abused. And, as far as mental illness goes, who decides? And how do we do this when the government, the go to for everything per the Democrats, is incompetent? Stephen Miller lays it out

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. – who looks like a pining presidential candidate – was of course out front in a rush to the microphones. He demanded that we all do “something,” without ever actually disclosing what that something might be. Apparently, what he really wants is confiscation of firearms from law-abiding Americans, who are now once again facing media backlash for a crime they had nothing to do with.

But as was revealed Sunday, in what is becoming a common theme in these mass shootings, no amount of background checking would have stopped the shooter in Sutherland Springs, Texas from purchasing his firearms, because the federal government failed to do it’s job properly. It’s not the first time.

While serving in the U.S. Air Force, shooter Devin Patrick Kelley was convicted of domestic assault against his wife. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges stemming from incidents including physically striking his wife and choking and kicking her. He also pleaded guilty to assaulting his stepson, severely enough to crack the young child’s skull.

I’m sure you know the rest: none of this was reported into the FBI database. He escaped from a mental health facility, there was a lot of brouhaha, and this still never ended up in the database. Oh, and let’s not forget that Democrats filibustered legislation that would have potentially stopped Kelley.

Because of a law passed in 1996, it’s illegal for anyone convicted a domestic abuse crime to purchase a firearm, something some of our dutiful lawmakers in Congress seem to not be aware of.

Because Kelley’s court records were never submitted the FBI database, Kelley sailed through several background checks and purchased up to four known firearms. Great work, guys.

Miller goes on to describe many other failures of Government, such as with Dylann Roof and Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, leading to

The National Rifle Association and lawful gun owners are not involved in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. During the shooting in Texas, a former NRA instructor was instrumental in stopping Kelley’s rampage – a rampage that could have been prevented had our government not been asleep at the wheel again. But sure, let’s turn over our health care to the government now.

If our government cannot perform simple tasks like filling our criminal record forms and entering information into databases, then why in the world would we burden federal employees with new gun laws that do nothing but restrict the constitutional rights of citizens and vendors in full compliance with the law?

The obvious answer here is to enforce the laws on the books, not create new ones that do not work. The “assault rifle” ban did not succeed. Limiting magazine size won’t work, because people will get bigger magazines elsewhere, or even make them. Government was provided with the laws necessary, and they fail. A law is only as good as it’s implementation and enforcement.

Read: The Problem Isn’t Gun Laws, It’s Government Incompetence »

NY Times Just Can’t Move On From Hillary Losing

It was one year ago today that we held a national election for President. By the end of the day, Democrats would realize that they would not be celebrating Hillary in the White House, and would have to deal with President Donald Trump. Since that time, they’ve been more unhinged than normal, whining about this, that, and the other, calling for impeachment, and even assassination. They’ve trotted out fantasies of ways Hillary could end up replacing Trump as president. And they’ve never gotten over how the Electoral College system works, such as this whiny NY Times Editorial Board piece

Editorial: Let the People Pick the President

The winners of Tuesday’s elections — Republican or Democrat, for governor, mayor or dogcatcher — all have one thing in common: They received more votes than their opponent. That seems like a pretty fair way to run an electoral race, which is why every election in America uses it — except the most important one of all.

Was it just a year ago that more than 136 million Americans cast their ballots for president, choosing Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by nearly three million votes, only to be thwarted by a 200-year-old constitutional anachronism designed in part to appease slaveholders and ratified when no one but white male landowners could vote?

It feels more like, oh, 17 years — the last time, incidentally, that the American people chose one candidate for president and the Electoral College imposed the other.

In both cases the loser was a Democrat, a fact that has tempted more than a few people to dismiss complaints about the Electoral College as nothing but partisan sour grapes. That’s a mistake….

No, it’s not a mistake. It is sour grapes. Pure sour, stepped on, left in the sun sour grapes. As you’d expect, the NYTEB continues on in their own reasoning as to why there should be a direct election of POTUS, because they just can’t move on.

What they forget is that Hillary did not win an absolute majority of votes. That’s right, she only took 48% of the votes. Trump and 3rd party candidates won the rest. Bill Clinton never won an absolute majority in either of his elections, either. They won the plurality, but, are we to elect a president based on plurality? Do we institute a run-off system, where people would then vote for the top two candidates, which an absolute majority did not necessarily support? Because if we went to a direct election system, there would be lots of people on the ballot, and they’d be competitive.

There are lots of reasons why we have an Electoral College, and they aren’t primarily because of slavery, as the NYTEB wants you to believe. I’m not going to go over them again. You know them, and Democrats will play dumb, because that’s what they do. If they’re still upset, perhaps they should think of why they rigged the primary in order to nominate a terrible candidate, who was less than personable, who enjoyed slurring a huge segment of the population, who passed out on camera, was beyond polarizing, and ran a poor campaign, not even bothering to visit states she needed in order to win.

So, stop whining. Start acting like adults. Yeah, yeah, I know, wasting my breath saying that to Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Just Can’t Move On From Hillary Losing »

Media Freaks Over Trump Dumping Koi Food, Claims International Incident

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 »

If All You See…

…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… »

There’s Only One Solution To Mass Shootings Or Something

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 »

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

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? »

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

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 »

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

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 »

If All You See…

…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… »

Pirate's Cove