#mainstreammedia

COP 25 Delegates by nation & aspirational virtue

Image result for brown envelopes bribe

Carbon Brief has done an admirable job denoting how many delegates from each country are attending the COP25 boondoggle, sorry, climate conference. It notes,

“The country with the most delegates is, by some distance, Côte d’Ivoire with 348. The West African nation also brought the largest delegation to COP23 in Bonn in 2017 – with 492 participants – and the fourth largest to COP24 in Katowice in 2018, with 208.

Côte d’Ivoire’s delegation is more than 50 people larger than the second-placed country, which is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with 293. The DRC also had the second-largest number of delegates at COP24 (with 237) and the third largest at COP23 (340).”

40.7% of delegates are from Africa. Similar to past years. Clearly, these COP summits create a fantastic opportunity to prey on the guilt of the West. As FNFM noted last year, the correlation with the number of delegates and the corruption index was significant.

India sent 35 to COP25 down from 182 at COP21. China sent 76, down from 326 respectively although it is more likely they sent investment bankers to see which African nation they can bribe to plunder their resources.

Australia has sent only 20 delegates but we should champion the fact that 65% of them were women. We even beat New Zealand’s 19 delegate field which only had 58% women. That should please those with Kiwi envy.

In what should rile the gender equality activists and Trump haters, the Paris Accord spurning Americans had higher proportional female representation than the EU or Norway. So much for capitalist pigs shunning socialist norms!

Syria had 100% female representation with the sole delegate. However the male patriarchy was perpetuated thanks to zero female representation from Pakistan, Yemen, Eritrea, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Mauritius and Libya.

Naturally nothing will come of COP25 until a grandiose statement to tackle the climate emergency (FNFM is surprised the Wollongong City Council hasn’t sent a team after the unanimous declaration to “adopt an aspirational emissions reduction target of zero emissions by 2030 for its own operations“) comes in the death throes of the last day when the most hot air is produced.

10-15 flushes & the media is still floating

Pie chart of our water use

In 2018, Congress passed the WaterSense Bill which meant that the EPA would only attach WaterSense labels to products that are 20% more water-efficient and perform as well as or better than standard models. The legislation was passed because of long-standing issues with respect to water conservation. According to a 2014 Government Accountability Report, 40 out of 50 state water managers expect water shortages under average conditions in some portion of their states over the next decade.

Streamgages.png

Of interest on p.51 of that same GAO report was the admission that “State water managers and other experts we interviewed said maintaining the streamgage network is critical… …Specifically, 40 of 50 state water managers identified collecting data to determine the quantity of available surface water, a function that streamgages provide, as very or somewhat importantMoreover, many state water managers reported that increasing the number of streamgages to collect water quantity data would be a useful action federal agencies could take to assist states’ water management efforts. USGS works in partnership with more than 850 federal, state, tribal, and local agencies to operate and maintain the network of over 8,000 streamgages around the United States.

As the report documents in the chart above, 3,500 streamgages have been discontinued. Which begs the question, why aren’t legislators looking at getting better access to data with which to make more informed decisions?

What do you know? The GAO pointed to the following:

“In response to these data concerns, federal officials told us that insufficient funding is a primary barrier to expanding their data collection efforts. For example, an USGS official told us that the agency is committed to expanding data networks, but USGS’s ability to collect data at more locations, improve timeliness, and conduct additional analyses is severely hampered by funding constraints.

Wouldn’t it be better to bash Trump for demanding more budget cuts at the USGS (ignored by Congress by the way) instead of taking him to task for his style and manner in elucidating concerns over the efficacy of WaterSense legislation in practice?

Yet the mainstream media just couldn’t help but take everything out of context in order to mock Trump. His remarks about flushing toilets “10-15x instead of once” is now headline news. Not the president’s questions with respect to whether the newly labelled products are living up to the product claims. If the media wants to bash him, they only need to do a little digging to find plenty of factual ways of criticizing him instead of playing than man rather than the ball.

Thomas Sowell perhaps said it best with respect to government spending and efficacy,

Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.”

SBS, some context and perspective would be nice

SBS reported that Australia is on track to exceed its 2030 emissions targets by 16 million tons C02-e. Based on the last set of data on published GHG emissions, that would mean a c.3% increase.

Put against total emissions around the world, Australia’s evil politicians would submit us to an extra 0.03% to the atmosphere. Our population by 2030 is expected to grow by 21%. So on that basis, per capita emissions will be lower.

Never mind reporting that SBS. Just stick to sensationalizing numbers without context and perspective. You know your adoring readers won’t care because it fits the alarmist narrative.

Although an issue, SBS couldn’t resist giving a partisan taxpayer funded kick to the guts of MP Angus Taylor for good measure.

500 loony law professors willfully blind

This is the letter written by 500+ law professors/lecturers who conformed to the group think on impeachment. The ultimate joke is that they have co-signed a document where it explicitly says,

We take no position on whether the President committed a crime…it does not depend on what Congress has chosen to criminalize.

Sorry? Does that mean they’re willing to sign up to a document that tries to out themselves as woke defenders of justice yet can’t put a name to pinning anything on Trump? Only further evidence that once venerable tertiary institutions are incapable of balanced views. Proof that education is now actually worth pennies on the dollar in exorbitant school fees. How funny they threw their own party under the bus by confirming the Dems are trying to criminalize something they won’t.

If these whackademics think American voters will take this letter with any more serious than a Hollywood celebrity they are kidding themselves.

Read it and weep. Guaranteed Democrat supporters.

———

We, the undersigned legal scholars, have concluded that President Trump engaged in impeachable conduct.

We, the undersigned legal scholars, have concluded that President Trump engaged in impeachable conduct.

We do not reach this conclusion lightly. The Founders did not make impeachment available for disagreements over policy, even profound ones, nor for extreme distaste for the manner in which the President executes his office. Only “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” warrant impeachment. But there is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help him distort an American election, for his personal and political benefit, at the direct expense of national security interests as determined by Congress. His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the Founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution.

We take no position on whether the President committed a crime. But conduct need not be criminal to be impeachable. The standard here is constitutional; it does not depend on what Congress has chosen to criminalize.

Impeachment is a remedy for grave abuses of the public trust. The two specific bases for impeachment named in the Constitution — treason and bribery — involve such abuses because they include conduct undertaken not in the “faithful execution” of public office that the Constitution requires, but instead for personal gain (bribery) or to benefit a foreign enemy (treason).

Impeachment is an especially essential remedy for conduct that corrupts elections. The primary check on presidents is political: if a president behaves poorly, voters can punish him or his party at the polls. A president who corrupts the system of elections seeks to place himself beyond the reach of this political check. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason described impeachable offenses as “attempts to subvert the constitution.” Corrupting elections subverts the process by which the Constitution makes the president democratically accountable. Put simply, if a President cheats in his effort at re-election, trusting the democratic process to serve as a check through that election is no remedy at all. That is what impeachment is for.

Moreover, the Founders were keenly concerned with the possibility of corruption in the president’s relationships with foreign governments. That is why they prohibited the president from accepting anything of value from foreign governments without Congress’s consent. The same concern drove their thinking on impeachment. James Madison noted that Congress must be able to remove the president between elections lest there be no remedy if a president betrayed the public trust in dealings with foreign powers.

In light of these considerations, overwhelming evidence made public to date forces us to conclude that President Trump engaged in impeachable conduct. To mention only a few of those facts: William B. Taylor, who leads the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, testified that President Trump directed the withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid for Ukraine in its struggle against Russia — aid that Congress determined to be in the U.S. national security interest — until Ukraine announced investigations that would aid the President’s re-election campaign. Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified that the President made a White House visit for the Ukrainian president conditional on public announcement of those investigations. In a phone call with the Ukrainian president, President Trump asked for a “favor” in the form of a foreign government investigation of a U.S. citizen who is his political rival. President Trump and his Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney made public statements confirming this use of governmental power to solicit investigations that would aid the President’s personal political interests. The President made clear that his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was central to efforts to spur Ukrainian investigations, and Mr. Giuliani confirmed that his efforts were in service of President Trump’s private interests.

Ultimately, whether to impeach the President and remove him from office depends on judgments that the Constitution leaves to Congress. But if the House of Representatives impeached the President for the conduct described here and the Senate voted to remove him, they would be acting well within their constitutional powers. Whether President Trump’s conduct is classified as bribery, as a high crime or misdemeanor, or as both, it is clearly impeachable under our Constitution.
Signed,*
——

Nancy says she prays for Trump (to be impeached)

Impeachment with no Crime

It is hard to fathom how this whole impeachment circus could turn into a bigger joke by the day. It isn’t lost on the American people. From Schiff’s parody in the initial stages to Democrat Rep Katie Porter wearing a Batgirl costume to the impeachment vote or even Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan admitting she crossed the road when she confronted Trump Tower…in what world do we live when the very people trying to take down the most powerful man in the world have to resort to such brazen unprofessionalism? It is embarrassing beyond words. How can anyone take them seriously?

Even more ridiculous was the question put forward to the sharply Democrat-leaning academics by Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, who asked them to raise their hands if they had personal knowledge of a single fact inside the Schiff Report. None did. All these top-level university professors did was prove why education should be free because it is worth absolutely nothing.

Overnight Nancy Pelosi let rip at a reporter who questioned if she disliked Trump after a presser detailing the plan to impeach him. Even worse she said she “prays for him” every day. Undoubtedly to get God to throw him in jail (or worse).

No surprises that Trump tweeted that he looks forward to the continuation of the impeachment. Such defiance gets 24/7media coverage and outs the Trump Derangement Syndrome on display.

This has all the hallmarks of destroying the Dem’s 2020 aspirations.

Cartoon from AF Branco of https://comicallyincorrect.com/

 

Stanford whackademic suffers chronic TDS

One would think dropping US$70,000pa on an education at Stanford University would provide ample opportunities to be taught by the best of the best.

Sadly, Stanford law Professor Pamela Karlan suffers from acute Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). She used the impeachment hearings to make a glib joke about President Trump’s son, Barron. She said, “The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.” She later apologized.

She also mentioned that she was so repulsed by Trump that she had to cross the road when walking past his hotel. One would hope she could act her age.

Yet the Democrats think Karlan represents the best-in-class to be a key witness to testify against Trump?

CM has no issue with her donating to the party of her choice (DNC) but her partisan bias is so blinding that she only undermined her own credibility to act in such a juvenile way.

When Democrat Party presidential nominees talk of wiping out student debt CM now sees the method in the madness. If Karlan is thought of as a top drawer university professor, she only proved how worthless getting a tertiary education is. CM would also ask for his money back. Whackademia at its finest.

The real reason Newsweek fired Kwong over Trump’s Thanksgiving

While Newsweek wants to sound magnanimous for firing Jessica Kwong over her article suggesting that Trump would probably just play golf and tweet over Thanksgiving she claims that the editors asked her to pen the story a week in advance. Pity the poor angel for not having access to Trump’s itinerary ahead of flying into a hot zone. CM guesses if her Twitter following was 706,200 instead of 7,062 she would still have a job at Newsweek.

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is rife in the mainstream media. So pitiful was Newsweek’s lame apology that it stuffed it down the bottom of the revised article. Kwong was mere cannon fodder so the magazine would look like it was taking proper action.

Assuming she doesn’t suffer from TDS, maybe Fox News or a conservative media outlet can snap her up. She claimed it was an honest mistake and to repost her original tweet with a picture of Trump in Afghanistan was at the very least eating a slice of humble pie. For that, she probably has more credibility than the entire editorial staff at Newsweek combined.