JEWISH KING JESUS IS COMING AT THE RAPTURE FOR US IN THE CLOUDS-DON'T MISS IT FOR THE WORLD.THE BIBLE TAKEN LITERALLY- WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE MAKES GOOD SENSE-SEEK NO OTHER SENSE-LEST YOU END UP IN NONSENSE.GET SAVED NOW- CALL ON JESUS TODAY.THE ONLY SAVIOR OF THE WHOLE EARTH - NO OTHER.
1 COR 15:23-JESUS THE FIRST FRUITS-CHRISTIANS RAPTURED TO JESUS-FIRST FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT-23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.ROMANS 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.(THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE)
OTHER TODAY STORIES
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2016/05/rocket-fired-from-gaza-into-israel-no.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2016/05/the-dow-was-up-145-points-wednesday.html
OTHER TODAY STORIES
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2016/05/rocket-fired-from-gaza-into-israel-no.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2016/05/the-dow-was-up-145-points-wednesday.html
CANADIAN CARBON TAX SCAM
http://canada2020.ca/canada-carbon-tax/
http://planet.infowars.com/politics/2432
Now Is The Time For A Carbon Tax, IMF Chief Says-by Samantha Page Oct 8, 2015 12:50 pm
Have we reached a tipping point towards putting a price on carbon?-The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) called for a carbon tax late Wednesday at the IMF/World Bank annual meeting in Lima, Peru. Meanwhile, reports show that more and more places are adopting carbon taxes, in largely successful efforts to use market forces to increase clean energy development.Climate change is now a “macro-critical” issue, IMF managing director Christine Lagarde said. The wording there is important, because the IMF defines macro-critical issues as “either critical to the achievement of macroeconomic program goals or necessary for the implementation of specific provisions under the IMF’s Articles of Agreement,” the Sierra Club noted Thursday.“The IMF has correctly recognized, after taking a sober look at major threats to the long term stability of all countries, that a changing climate poses threats to the stability and vitality of the world’s economies,” Steve Herz, a senior attorney with Sierra Club’s International Climate Program, said in a statement emailed to ThinkProgress.This is just the latest in the IMF’s commentary on the economic damage caused by systems that support fossil fuels. The IMF — whose “primary purpose is to ensure the stability of the international monetary system” — made headlines earlier this year when it reported that governments spend $5.3 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies annually.“Lagarde’s comprehensive climate change agenda for the IMF is historic both for its content, and for its timing ahead of international climate negotiations this summer in Paris,” Herz said.Lagarde referred to the problem of energy subsidies again Wednesday during the organization’s Conversation on Climate Change. “Now is the time to phase out energy subsidies,” she said.Lagarde: if we chicken out of climate change we will all turn to chicken: we will be fried, grilled and roasted. #Voices4Climate-— IMF (@IMFNews) October 7, 2015-The IMF, which carries out its mission through monitoring, lending, and technical assistance, cannot invest directly. “What we can do is certainly provide strong advocacy for things such as removing subsidies that actually go to the wrong pockets. What we can do is provide tools for countries to actually set the right prices, including externalities,” Lagarde said.Phasing out energy subsidies, such as the United States’ tax incentives on oil and gas exploration, might prove harder than adding a carbon tax — a program that has already proven successful across a wide swath of economies.There are 40 countries and more than 20 cities, states and regions, that already have or have planned carbon prices, covering about 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report released Thursday by the New Climate Economy.According to that report, carbon pricing works, and it would work even better if governments raised the cost to polluters.There are myriad examples of carbon tax programs that have worked. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, for instance, which includes nine northeastern states, is credited with adding $1.3 billion to the economy there, while saving consumers $460 million in energy costs.There are a number of ways to structure carbon pricing. Revenue from RGGI, for instance, goes back into state funds that support investment in efficiency and clean energy programs. That is essentially the structure Lagarde supported, with revenues going internationally to support renewable energy in developing nations, which have been promised $100 billion to help reach emissions reduction targets.But for years economists in the United States have called for a revenue neutral carbon tax. Under this type of program, carbon emitters would be taxed, but the money would not go into government coffers. Instead, the revenue would be returned to consumers, most likely as a tax rebate.Revenue neutral carbon taxes appeal to free-market conservatives because they do not increase the size of government, as well as climate change activists, who see them as an effective deterrent to continued investment in carbon-intensive energy sources.However the plan is structured, advocates of carbon pricing want to strike while the iron is hot — and prices are low.“Conditions are now particularly favorable for both carbon pricing and fossil fuel consumption subsidy reform due to the fall in global oil prices over the last year, combined with lower gas and coal prices,” the report says.“The time is right to introduce carbon prices around the world, as well as to pursue complementary measures like reform for fossil fuel subsidies, which act like negative carbon prices,” Lord Nicholas Stern, co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, the parent organization of the New Climate Economy, said in a statement. “The world economy is undergoing a remarkable period of transition, and we need to act now to avoid locking ourselves into unsustainable development patterns.”
Wildrose blasts proposed NDP carbon tax as a 'tax on everything'-Darcy Henton, Calgary Herald-Published on: November 16, 2015 | Last Updated: November 16, 2015 5:33 PM MDT
A new carbon tax that’s expected to be proposed by the Alberta NDP to combat global warning is a “tax on everything” that will hurt laid-off Albertans, says Wildrose Leader Brian Jean.The leader of the official Opposition demanded to know why Premier Rachel Notley suggested in a speech in Toronto last week that she plans to introduce a carbon tax while Alberta is in the throes of recession triggered by the massive collapse of oil prices.“While the premier was campaigning for the hearts and the minds of people in downtown Toronto, she announced that a new carbon tax is on its way,” Jean told the legislature.“Would have been nice if she told Albertans first. Why is the premier more determined to create another new tax on Albertans rather than working to protect Albertans’ jobs?”Jean said the damage that will be caused by the tax “is very obvious.“It’s a tax on everything and will be the latest blow to Albertans who are already losing their jobs or seeing their take-home pay cut,” he told MLAs.Notley said Alberta must take action to show it is serious about attacking carbon emissions if it hopes to win approval to build pipelines to get its oil to market.“It is really important for this government to move forward on a good, reasonable climate change strategy,” she said. “This is not new; there are no surprises here. I’m pleased to be able to move forward on the very agenda that we presented to Albertans, that they voted for, that they see as being important for kids and the province’s future.”Speaking last Thursday at a Broadbent Institute Progress Gala in Toronto, the premier said her government will soon unveil key elements of Alberta’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions.“We are going to reduce carbon emissions by pricing them,” Notley said in her address.“Our government already took an important step here last spring, by doubling the carbon price in our province’s existing carbon regulations. That was a good start, but more needs to be done. So we will do what needs to be done.”She has revealed no further information about what that will entail.Environment Minister Shannon Phillips is expected to announce the NDP’s next steps on climate change action later this week before Notley heads to Ottawa to meet with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other premiers to discuss a joint strategy.“We have struck a gold-standard panel to examine the matters of the environmental legacy that was left to us by the previous government,” Phillips told the legislature Monday.“They are providing us advice on renewables, on how to phase out coal appropriately, on how to price carbon, and on how to take leadership on energy efficiency.”She advised opposition parties to “stay tuned” for more details.Notley has repeatedly said she wants to take a comprehensive plan of action to the next climate change conference in Paris later this month.dhenton@calgaryherald.com
Alberta introduces bill to implement carbon tax-[CBC]-May 24, 2016-YAHOONEWS
The typical Alberta household will pay an additional $70 to $105 each year in indirect costs for goods and services under the province's controversial new carbon tax.This figure, provided by government officials Tuesday, is in addition to the direct costs consumers will pay for fuel and home heating that were announced in last month's budget.The government plans to provide rebates to lower-income Albertans to cover the direct costs.Environment Minister Shannon Phillips said the rebates are a little bit higher to help low-income Albertans deal with costs passed on to them by businesses for goods and services."The lowest income folks are the lowest users of energy," she said. "They are getting their rebate back at an average, they're actually going to come back ahead."On Tuesday, Phillips introduced Bill 20, which gives the government the legislative authority to implement the carbon tax, set to take effect Jan. 1, 2017.She said the bill puts the Alberta government at the front of the battle against climate change."For too long, governments in Alberta chose to ignore and deny the problem. That approach didn't work," she said. "Alberta can't move forward if we are stuck in the past."-First cheques in January-The details of Bill 20 were previously announced in the budget.The government is providing full and partial rebates to 66 per cent of Albertans to cover the direct costs of the carbon tax.By 2018, a couple with two children will pay $508 extra a year under the carbon tax. Families with a combined household income of $95,000 will get a full rebate of $540. A couple with two children will not qualify for a rebate if they make more than $101,500 a year.People who qualify will start receiving their first cheques in January 2017.Relief for small business will come in the form of a drop in the tax rate from three to two per cent, starting Jan. 1, 2017. Bill 20 makes the necessary changes to the Alberta Corporate Tax Act.The bill also establishes Energy Efficiency Alberta, an agency that will provide programs and information to help people reduce their energy consumption. The province intends to have it operating by January 2017.On Jan. 1, large emitters will pay a carbon price of $20 per tonne for emissions that go above their target. The price rises to $30 a tonne on Jan. 1, 2018.The carbon tax is expected to raise $9.6 billion over five years. The reduction in the small business tax rate will cost the province $865 million.The government plans to spend $165 million in 2018-19, $170 million in 2019-20 and $175 million in 2020-21 on reducing energy costs.Treasury Board economists calculated the indirect costs to Albertans using Statistics Canada figures for 473 commodities across 235 different industries. A typical household has 2.6 people.-No benchmarks-Opposition MLAs says they have many questions about the tax.Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark supports action on climate change but said there are no benchmarks to measure the success on the carbon tax, particularly on getting pipelines built. "Acting on climate change is important, but ensuring that we understand not just the benefits but the costs of that is really incumbent on government," he said..The government estimates the carbon tax will reduce greenhouse gases by 30 megatonnes in the first few years, moving up to 50 megatonnes over today's numbers in 2030.Clark said the targets Canada agreed to in Paris suggests Alberta would have to reduce emissions even more. The Wildrose Party has estimated the carbon tax will cost the average Alberta household $1,000 in direct and indirect costs.Wildrose Leader Brian Jean said the tax will hurt families and make Alberta less competitive. "It's time for the NDP government to rethink this carbon tax, to reconsider it, and really truly consider the impact it will have on everyday working Alberta families who were not asking for it and did not expect it as it was not campaigned for in last year's election," he said. Jean said a Wildrose government would refute claims that Alberta oil is the dirtiest in the world. He said they would also move Alberta towards the use of natural gas and clean coal technology.
Carbon tax will cost Alberta families at least $1,000, Wildrose says-'Why we are going to such great lengths ... is beyond belief,' Brian Jean says-By Michelle Bellefontaine, CBC News Posted: Apr 18, 2016 12:00 PM MT Last Updated: Apr 18, 2016 3:08 PM MT
Alberta's NDP government is hiding the true effects of the carbon tax, which could cost families at least $1,000 more each year, Wildrose Leader Brian Jean said Monday.Although low- and middle-income Albertans will receive rebates on the tax when it starts Jan. 1, 2017, Jean said they still will pay up to $700 extra.Jean said the tax is just a money grab and noted the government has provided no information on how the measure will reduce emissions.He called on the government to delay the tax until the full economic impact can be studied."[The tax is] certainly not required by the international community. It's not required by the federal government," Jean said."And why we are going to such great lengths to be better than anybody else in the world by far, to punish our own competitiveness, is beyond belief."Details of the carbon tax were released in Thursday's budget.Full and partial rebates will be offered to singles earning up to $51,250 net income annually and couples earning up to $100,000.The net income cutoff for couples with two children is $101,000. Rebates will rise in 2018, when the carbon levy increases to $30 a tonne from $20.The government has said people will see extra costs at the gas pump and on their home heating bills. The money collected will be invested in green infrastructure, energy efficiency programs and clean energy research. Jean cited data from the Canadian Tax Journal that said a $30 carbon tax will increase electricity prices by 7.5 per cent, food costs by two per cent and the shelter costs by 1.2 per cent.Jean said the initiative will do little or nothing to change people's behaviour.Environment Minister Shannon Phillips rejected the numbers used by the Wildrose, which she said come from a Canada-wide study written three years ago. She said the cost for an average family will be $500, with 60 per cent of Alberta households getting a full rebate.She said the study doesn't take into account the Specified Gas Emitter Regulation, which came into effect in 2007 and requires facilities that emit 100,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gases a year to reduce their emissions intensity.Phillips said the Wildrose also didn't factor in additional programs the government will fund from the carbon tax. "The way that this data is presented by the Wildrose is sloppy, it is intellectually lazy, and it does not apply to Alberta," Phillips said. Jean said municipalities will bear the cost, which will translate into higher taxes. But Phillips said cities and towns will benefit from policies that build green infrastructure and expand transit. Phillips said the carbon tax, phase-out of coal and methane reduction in the oil and gas sector should reduce emissions by 30 to 35 megatonnes from where things were under the previous government.
How to sell a carbon tax to Canadians-Using the B.C. model, new study looks at the dos and don'ts of introducing a carbon tax-By Margo McDiarmid, environment reporter, CBC News Posted: Feb 19, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 19, 2015 6:39 AM ET
If you want to bring in carbon tax that actually works, the folks at Clean Energy Canada have some helpful tips for you.Such as: don't introduce the new tax during the time of year when gas prices are the highest; and be prepared that a lot of people and businesses won't love the idea and won't be afraid to say so. Clean Energy Canada, a think-tank that focuses on clean renewable energy, conducted interviews with 13 people involved in crafting British Columbia's carbon tax in 2008, a list that included politicians, business representatives, academics and environmental groups."We wanted to get a look behind the curtain and find out how do you do something like this," said Clare Demerse, the author of the report that came out of those studies.The result is a report on the lessons learned about pricing pollution — a concept that still scares many politicians.-B.C.'s carbon tax a first-B.C. was the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce an economy-wide price on carbon. It has since become viewed internationally as a textbook example of how to introduce a carbon price that can actually work.Now into its seventh year, the policy is fully implemented. The province has met its targets to cut greenhouse gas pollution and the economy is humming along with another budget surplus this year. "Now I'm not saying it's because of the tax, but it means the tax has not held them back," said Demerse, who is senior policy adviser with Clean Energy Canada.-Clare Demerse-Clare Demerse is senior policy adviser at Clean Energy Canada, and the author of the report that looked at the introduction of B.C.'s carbon tax in 2008. (Clean Energy Canada)-The group's report comes amid a growing debate in Canada over how to control carbon pollution.The federal NDP, for example, supports a national cap and trade system like the one now operating in Quebec. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau recently proposed a national carbon pricing plan that he compared to medicare, in which Ottawa would set national targets and enforce principles, but leave provinces to design their own systems.The federal Conservatives have consistently called a carbon tax a job-killing tax on everything. Last December, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons it was a "crazy" idea. -Not for the faint of heart-But Demerse said that hasn't been the experience in B.C."The carbon tax has become institutionalized in B.C. where no one is talking about getting rid of it," she said in an interview.That doesn't mean it hasn't been difficult. In fact, a main takeaway from the report is a carbon tax is not for the faint of heart.B.C.'s carbon tax covers nearly 70 per cent of the province's carbon pollution that comes from burning coal, oil or natural gas.It started out at $10 for every tonne of carbon and has increased to $30 a tonne. It is levied on fuel wholesalers, who pass it on to retailers, who pass it on to consumers. The idea is to encourage people and businesses to change their habits and choose cleaner fuels.Gas prices in B.C. are now seven cents a litre higher because of the tax.But the report says the simple, gradual approach at the beginning has helped the tax succeed."$10 a tonne was chosen because it was low enough to be non-threatening," the report notes. B.C.'s former Liberal premier Gordon Campbell was the one who introduced the carbon tax in 2008. He resigned abruptly two years later following a highly controversial move to align the provincial sales tax with the GST. ((CBC))Another the key is that the tax is revenue neutral — every dollar collected has to be returned to residents and businesses through tax cuts.In fact, the provincial finance minister has to take a 15 per cent pay cut if the tax is not revenue neutral in every budget.Businesses liked that idea and in turn supported the tax. But it's also become B.C.'s biggest challenge when it comes to voters.Many people didn't trust it and still don't understand it, said Demerse.One problem was probably the timing. B.C. politicians laugh about it now, Demerse says, but the initial carbon tax was introduced on July 1, 2008, the time of year when the price of gas is the highest and people drive the most.Another problem was that "a huge number of voters said 'I just don't believe it is actually revenue neutral,' it didn't convince them that the government said it," she said.Partly that is because people don't get a cheque back in the mail, she says. Instead they get a tax credit once a year, which many don't notice.One result of this is that the province has had to bring new exemptions to the tax, such as providing an annual $200 benefit for northern and rural homeowners who felt they were being hit hard by the increased cost of fuel.Demerse said she considers it a lesson for any other jurisdiction thinking of doing the same thing. "You can't just announce it and one day, put up a couple of people to speak to it and then go away," she said. "You are going to be explaining this and defending this for a long time."
Ontario’s carbon tax: Too late to do good?-Global News - Web Producer - James Armstrong-By James Armstrong-National Online Supervising Editor, Breaking News Global News
TORONTO – Ontario has been thinking about a carbon tax since 2008. By the time it’s unveiled later this year, it may be too late to do much good.But whether it works depends largely on whether the province is willing to back out of existing regulations governing the province’s energy sector, says University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick.“A carbon tax only makes sense if it’s introduced instead of all the other climate policies,”he said in an interview Tuesday.“B.C. didn’t go for a Green Energy Act kind of approach. They didn’t throw a whole lot of money intro wind and solar and regulations like that. So there’s a bit of a case to be made for them to go the carbon tax route.”Premier Dalton McGuinty introduced Ontario’s Green Energy Act in 2009 to force the province to shift to renewable energy and away from coal.If Ontario returned to its 2000 electricity system – a mix of coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro – a carbon tax could make sense, increasing the cost of coal relative to gas and hydro.But what the Ontario government has done instead, he said, is force the shift away from coal while also forcing in wind farms and extra gas (which compensates for the lower amount of energy produced by wind).“They’re forcing people to use gas, then they’re putting a tax on top of it, all it’s going to do is basically be a tax on policies that were forced in place,” McKitrick said.“It’s too late for Ontario. I mean, they’ll raise money for it, of course. … But it’s too late for them to use it as an efficient policy mechanism unless they’re prepared to back out of all the inefficient policy mechanisms that they’ve put in place through regulation.”Ontario Environment and Climate Change Minister Glenn Murray told The Globe and Mail the Liberal government is “looking at how we can transition Ontario to a low-carbon economy through initiatives such as setting a price on carbon.”He wouldn’t say whether the plan was a cap-and-trade model or a carbon tax similar to British Columbia’s, but did say it would be unveiled later this year and include cleaner fuel standards and energy conservation policies.In an email response to Global News late Tuesday afternoon, the minister said in a statement that Ontario’s climate strategy hasn’t been determined yet but will “set the path to help us reach an 80 per cent reduction in [Greenhouse Gas] emissions by 2050.”Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller suggested that if Ontario wants a carbon tax, the government should look to the carbon tax in British Columbia and not Quebec and California.“A carbon tax is a good thing when they do like they did in British Columbia,” Miller said at a Tuesday morning press conference. “Which is, you tax things that emit bad stuff in the atmosphere and you give the money back to the people. And that is why they have one of the most successful carbon taxes certainly on the continent, if not the world.”There are two main types of carbon tax: a revenue neutral model and a cap-and-trade model.The B.C. carbon tax is revenue neutral. The province puts a $30 levy on each tonne of carbon emissions – about 7 cents on a litre of gasoline – and in turn, reduces income tax for residents by an equivalent amount.“We’re taxing the bad things and relieving the tax on the good things that we want to encourage,” Miller said.And it appears to be working. According to The Globe and Mail, fuel use in the province has dropped by 16 per cent while increasing everywhere else in Canada.The carbon tax in Quebec and California is cap-and-trade. The two jurisdictions limit how much carbon a company can use. If the company wants to use more, it must buy credits from a company that has some left over.The cap-and-trade model has been used around the world – sometimes effectively, according to the David Suzuki foundation. The United States implemented one in the 1990s to reduce acid rain; the European Union implemented one in 2005 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and Tokyo launched its own cap and trade system in 2010 with a goal of reducing emissions 25 per cent below 200 levels by 2020.
Pennsylvania judge orders Cosby to trial on sexual assault charge-[Reuters]-By Joseph Ax-May 24, 2016-YAHOONEWS
NORRISTOWN, Pa. (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday ordered comedian Bill Cosby to stand trial on accusations of sexual assault, the most serious setback so far for a man who epitomized the all-American dad on the 1980s sitcom "The Cosby Show."Judge Elizabeth McHugh found that prosecutors presented enough evidence to support allegations that he drugged and assaulted a woman in 2004. The judge rejected arguments from Cosby's defense lawyers that the case should be thrown out.As the hearing concluded, McHugh wished Cosby luck, to which the 78-year-old entertainer responded, "Thank you."The decision followed a 3-1/2 hour preliminary hearing in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, where prosecutors introduced statements that Cosby and the woman, Andrea Constand, separately gave to police in 2005.Constand herself was not called to testify, although prosecutors said she is prepared to appear as a trial witness.She told police in 2005 she was attacked as she lay on a sofa at Cosby's Philadelphia-area home "paralyzed" by drugs the entertainer had given her, according to police.Constand, a former basketball coach at Cosby's Temple University alma mater, is the only woman whose accusations of sexual assault have resulted in criminal charges against Cosby.But Cosby has been hit by sexual assault allegations from more than 50 women. He has denied assaulting anyone. Most of the cases are too old to be prosecuted, but the entertainer faces civil lawsuits from his accusers.A trial date in the Pennsylvania criminal case has not yet been set. Cosby faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted of the most serious charge against him, aggravated indecent assault.In his own 2005 interview with police from Cheltenham, Pennsylvania, Cosby confirmed some details of Constand's account.He acknowledged giving Constand 1-1/2 pills of the antihistamine Benadryl to relax her and said the two engaged in heavy "petting," including fondling each other's genitals, Cheltenham Police Chief John Norris testified.According to Constand's statements, Cosby told her the pills would help "take the edge off." She swallowed the pills, added a sip of wine and told the comedian, "I trust you," the detective said.Cosby told police Constand was conscious during the incident, never told him to stop and did not mention any ill effects from the pills, Norris said.-COSBY NOT GUILTY, LAWYER SAYS-Brian McMonagle, Cosby's lawyer, said after the hearing that prosecutors relied on an 11-year-old "hearsay" statement rather than present a live witness because their case was weak. He expressed confidence Cosby would be absolved."Mr. Cosby is not guilty of any crime and not one single fact presented by (prosecutors) rebuts this truth," McMonagle said.The judge said McHugh said state law permits prosecutors to introduce hearsay evidence at a preliminary hearing.Cosby's lawyers repeatedly questioned the accuracy of Constand's account, in what is likely a preview of their trial strategy.McMonagle pointed to discrepancies between Constand's initial interview with a detective and her later written statement, including her inability to recall precisely when the incident occurred.He also said she had consensual sexual encounters with Cosby on other occasions, had dinner with Cosby after the alleged assault and later took her family to see his show in Toronto, Canada.A stand-up comedian, Cosby landed a breakthrough role on the 1960s TV show "I Spy," becoming a rare black actor with a leading part on a network television series. He went on to other shows and became a pitchman for Jell-O pudding while also stirring controversy with critical comments about black youth culture.(Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Dan Trotta)
Trump, Clinton win Washington state's presidential primaries-[The Canadian Press]-Stephen OhlemacHer, The Associated Press-May 25, 2016-YAHOONEWS
WASHINGTON - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump each won primaries in Washington state Tuesday.Trump's win helps him inch closer to clinching the GOP nomination for president. He is within 41 delegates of the number needed to become the Republican nominee.Clinton's win might give her some momentum, but it won't get her any delegates. There were no delegates at stake in the Democratic primary. Washington Democrats already awarded their delegates based on party caucuses.Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders won Washington's caucuses in March, getting 74 delegates. Clinton got 27.Republicans in Washington will allocate all 44 delegates to their national convention based on the primary results.Trump won at least 27 delegates on Tuesday, with 17 still left to be allocated. The billionaire businessman has 1,196 delegates. It takes 1,237 delegates to win the GOP nomination.There are no more Republican contests until June 7, when the last five states vote. With a total of 303 delegates at stake in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota, Trump should easily clinch the nomination that day.Trump is the only remaining candidate in the GOP contest. But his former opponents, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, were still on the ballot because they suspended their campaigns after the ballots were printed. Ben Carson was also on the ballot because he never submitted the paperwork to have his name removed.Sanders trails Hillary Clinton in the delegate count and he is running out of contests in his longshot bid to catch up.Clinton is just 78 delegates short of clinching the Democratic nomination for president. She is on track to do so in early June, even if she loses all the remaining contests.Clinton has 1,768 pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. Sanders has 1,497.Clinton's lead is even bigger when superdelegate endorsements are included. These are the party leaders and elected officials who can support the candidate of their choice.Overall, Clinton has 2,305 delegates and Sanders has 1,539. It takes 2,383 delegates to win the Democratic nomination.___Follow Stephen Ohlemacher on Twitter at http://twitter.com/stephenatap
China to protect IP, won't over-regulate innovation: Premier Li-[Reuters]-May 24, 2016-YAHOONEWS
BEIJING (Reuters) - China will focus on protecting intellectual property and commercial secrets, while offering a fair playing field for both domestic and foreign companies, premier Li Keqiang said on Tuesday at a technology summit.Li also said that new innovations should be given room to grow, free from over-regulation, even if new and traditional industries sometimes run into conflict.China is pushing entrepreneurship and innovation to encourage economic growth, although government oversight and support for state firms remains strong."We should not regulate new things to death, but should first observe. This gives them a chance to develop, which also helps expose gaps in regulation and will make subsequent policies more fair and effective," Li said at the conference, according to a report on a government website.China is backing a new round of opening its economy to overseas industry, and welcomes foreign companies expanding in China, especially in the less-developed central and western regions of the country, Li said.The China Big Data Expo is being held in Guizhou, a southwestern province that is one of China's poorest but which is aiming to be a center for the big data industry.Dell Inc chief executive Michael Dell, Tencent chairman Ma Huateng, Foxconn chief Terry Gou and other tech executives attended the summit with Li.(Reporting by Elias Glenn)
MODERATE ISLAM-A LIE FROM THE PITS OF HELL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyotLRHMOIk
Even Leftist, Atheist Richard Dawkins: Islam is NOT a Race…He is an equal opportunity basher of all things theistic.Louder With Crowder - May 25, 2016-INFOWARS
Say what you will about the atheistic, left-wing darling Richard Dawkins, but you have to give credit where credit is due. He is an equal opportunity basher of all things theistic.But this time the Christ-hating progressive dismantled political correctness, as it relates to Islam. With surgical precision:The controversial atheist academic, 75, argued the public was too worried about being viewed as racist and claimed it is absurd to be accused of racism for criticising Islam.Dawkins said this was the result of an “absurd double standard” in the Western world which means people are more anxious about attacking Islam than Christianity.“People are terrified of being thought racist,” he told The Times. “There’s an awful confusion in many people’s minds. They think Islam is a race, which of course it isn’t”.Firstly, the obvious:When Dawkins or Bill Maher put Christians, or even Christ himself, on blast, leftists cackle like hyenas. They’re just less appealing than said hyenas. But the moment someone cracks a Muhammed joke? They turn paler than Conan O’Brien. Welcome to the double-standard club. It’s standing-room only.Dawkins is totally right. We’ve been echoing each other on this point since practically the crusades: Islam is not a race. Islam is a religion. More importantly, Islam is an ideology. It’s an ideology with an ever-growing body count. That’s if you can count bodies accurately post suicide bomb.TeamAmerica1-But to say such things is deemed “Islamophobia.” Worth noting, the fear of being labled a racist or an “Islamophobe” kind of sort of led to the San Bernardino killers getting away with murder. Yes, really. Read Woman Didn’t Report Muslim San Bernardino Killer… Guess Why… This same fear of being labelled racist keeps us from having an honest conversation about Islam and how it fits with the rest of the world in the 21st century. Spoiler alert: Islam, as it currently stands, doesn’t fit the 21st century. At least not in Western civilization’s idea of the 21st century.Dr. Dawkins understands that much. Until we heed his words and purge political correctness from our collective minds, expect more of the same. The same being leftists fearing to use the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” in the same sentence, while girls are being raped by Muslim migrants and infidels are being blown up.Of course criticizing Islam is the norm for these parts of the internet. Behold, criticizing Islam before it was cool:
http://canada2020.ca/canada-carbon-tax/
http://planet.infowars.com/politics/2432
Now Is The Time For A Carbon Tax, IMF Chief Says-by Samantha Page Oct 8, 2015 12:50 pm
Have we reached a tipping point towards putting a price on carbon?-The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) called for a carbon tax late Wednesday at the IMF/World Bank annual meeting in Lima, Peru. Meanwhile, reports show that more and more places are adopting carbon taxes, in largely successful efforts to use market forces to increase clean energy development.Climate change is now a “macro-critical” issue, IMF managing director Christine Lagarde said. The wording there is important, because the IMF defines macro-critical issues as “either critical to the achievement of macroeconomic program goals or necessary for the implementation of specific provisions under the IMF’s Articles of Agreement,” the Sierra Club noted Thursday.“The IMF has correctly recognized, after taking a sober look at major threats to the long term stability of all countries, that a changing climate poses threats to the stability and vitality of the world’s economies,” Steve Herz, a senior attorney with Sierra Club’s International Climate Program, said in a statement emailed to ThinkProgress.This is just the latest in the IMF’s commentary on the economic damage caused by systems that support fossil fuels. The IMF — whose “primary purpose is to ensure the stability of the international monetary system” — made headlines earlier this year when it reported that governments spend $5.3 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies annually.“Lagarde’s comprehensive climate change agenda for the IMF is historic both for its content, and for its timing ahead of international climate negotiations this summer in Paris,” Herz said.Lagarde referred to the problem of energy subsidies again Wednesday during the organization’s Conversation on Climate Change. “Now is the time to phase out energy subsidies,” she said.Lagarde: if we chicken out of climate change we will all turn to chicken: we will be fried, grilled and roasted. #Voices4Climate-— IMF (@IMFNews) October 7, 2015-The IMF, which carries out its mission through monitoring, lending, and technical assistance, cannot invest directly. “What we can do is certainly provide strong advocacy for things such as removing subsidies that actually go to the wrong pockets. What we can do is provide tools for countries to actually set the right prices, including externalities,” Lagarde said.Phasing out energy subsidies, such as the United States’ tax incentives on oil and gas exploration, might prove harder than adding a carbon tax — a program that has already proven successful across a wide swath of economies.There are 40 countries and more than 20 cities, states and regions, that already have or have planned carbon prices, covering about 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report released Thursday by the New Climate Economy.According to that report, carbon pricing works, and it would work even better if governments raised the cost to polluters.There are myriad examples of carbon tax programs that have worked. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, for instance, which includes nine northeastern states, is credited with adding $1.3 billion to the economy there, while saving consumers $460 million in energy costs.There are a number of ways to structure carbon pricing. Revenue from RGGI, for instance, goes back into state funds that support investment in efficiency and clean energy programs. That is essentially the structure Lagarde supported, with revenues going internationally to support renewable energy in developing nations, which have been promised $100 billion to help reach emissions reduction targets.But for years economists in the United States have called for a revenue neutral carbon tax. Under this type of program, carbon emitters would be taxed, but the money would not go into government coffers. Instead, the revenue would be returned to consumers, most likely as a tax rebate.Revenue neutral carbon taxes appeal to free-market conservatives because they do not increase the size of government, as well as climate change activists, who see them as an effective deterrent to continued investment in carbon-intensive energy sources.However the plan is structured, advocates of carbon pricing want to strike while the iron is hot — and prices are low.“Conditions are now particularly favorable for both carbon pricing and fossil fuel consumption subsidy reform due to the fall in global oil prices over the last year, combined with lower gas and coal prices,” the report says.“The time is right to introduce carbon prices around the world, as well as to pursue complementary measures like reform for fossil fuel subsidies, which act like negative carbon prices,” Lord Nicholas Stern, co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, the parent organization of the New Climate Economy, said in a statement. “The world economy is undergoing a remarkable period of transition, and we need to act now to avoid locking ourselves into unsustainable development patterns.”
Wildrose blasts proposed NDP carbon tax as a 'tax on everything'-Darcy Henton, Calgary Herald-Published on: November 16, 2015 | Last Updated: November 16, 2015 5:33 PM MDT
A new carbon tax that’s expected to be proposed by the Alberta NDP to combat global warning is a “tax on everything” that will hurt laid-off Albertans, says Wildrose Leader Brian Jean.The leader of the official Opposition demanded to know why Premier Rachel Notley suggested in a speech in Toronto last week that she plans to introduce a carbon tax while Alberta is in the throes of recession triggered by the massive collapse of oil prices.“While the premier was campaigning for the hearts and the minds of people in downtown Toronto, she announced that a new carbon tax is on its way,” Jean told the legislature.“Would have been nice if she told Albertans first. Why is the premier more determined to create another new tax on Albertans rather than working to protect Albertans’ jobs?”Jean said the damage that will be caused by the tax “is very obvious.“It’s a tax on everything and will be the latest blow to Albertans who are already losing their jobs or seeing their take-home pay cut,” he told MLAs.Notley said Alberta must take action to show it is serious about attacking carbon emissions if it hopes to win approval to build pipelines to get its oil to market.“It is really important for this government to move forward on a good, reasonable climate change strategy,” she said. “This is not new; there are no surprises here. I’m pleased to be able to move forward on the very agenda that we presented to Albertans, that they voted for, that they see as being important for kids and the province’s future.”Speaking last Thursday at a Broadbent Institute Progress Gala in Toronto, the premier said her government will soon unveil key elements of Alberta’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions.“We are going to reduce carbon emissions by pricing them,” Notley said in her address.“Our government already took an important step here last spring, by doubling the carbon price in our province’s existing carbon regulations. That was a good start, but more needs to be done. So we will do what needs to be done.”She has revealed no further information about what that will entail.Environment Minister Shannon Phillips is expected to announce the NDP’s next steps on climate change action later this week before Notley heads to Ottawa to meet with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other premiers to discuss a joint strategy.“We have struck a gold-standard panel to examine the matters of the environmental legacy that was left to us by the previous government,” Phillips told the legislature Monday.“They are providing us advice on renewables, on how to phase out coal appropriately, on how to price carbon, and on how to take leadership on energy efficiency.”She advised opposition parties to “stay tuned” for more details.Notley has repeatedly said she wants to take a comprehensive plan of action to the next climate change conference in Paris later this month.dhenton@calgaryherald.com
Alberta introduces bill to implement carbon tax-[CBC]-May 24, 2016-YAHOONEWS
The typical Alberta household will pay an additional $70 to $105 each year in indirect costs for goods and services under the province's controversial new carbon tax.This figure, provided by government officials Tuesday, is in addition to the direct costs consumers will pay for fuel and home heating that were announced in last month's budget.The government plans to provide rebates to lower-income Albertans to cover the direct costs.Environment Minister Shannon Phillips said the rebates are a little bit higher to help low-income Albertans deal with costs passed on to them by businesses for goods and services."The lowest income folks are the lowest users of energy," she said. "They are getting their rebate back at an average, they're actually going to come back ahead."On Tuesday, Phillips introduced Bill 20, which gives the government the legislative authority to implement the carbon tax, set to take effect Jan. 1, 2017.She said the bill puts the Alberta government at the front of the battle against climate change."For too long, governments in Alberta chose to ignore and deny the problem. That approach didn't work," she said. "Alberta can't move forward if we are stuck in the past."-First cheques in January-The details of Bill 20 were previously announced in the budget.The government is providing full and partial rebates to 66 per cent of Albertans to cover the direct costs of the carbon tax.By 2018, a couple with two children will pay $508 extra a year under the carbon tax. Families with a combined household income of $95,000 will get a full rebate of $540. A couple with two children will not qualify for a rebate if they make more than $101,500 a year.People who qualify will start receiving their first cheques in January 2017.Relief for small business will come in the form of a drop in the tax rate from three to two per cent, starting Jan. 1, 2017. Bill 20 makes the necessary changes to the Alberta Corporate Tax Act.The bill also establishes Energy Efficiency Alberta, an agency that will provide programs and information to help people reduce their energy consumption. The province intends to have it operating by January 2017.On Jan. 1, large emitters will pay a carbon price of $20 per tonne for emissions that go above their target. The price rises to $30 a tonne on Jan. 1, 2018.The carbon tax is expected to raise $9.6 billion over five years. The reduction in the small business tax rate will cost the province $865 million.The government plans to spend $165 million in 2018-19, $170 million in 2019-20 and $175 million in 2020-21 on reducing energy costs.Treasury Board economists calculated the indirect costs to Albertans using Statistics Canada figures for 473 commodities across 235 different industries. A typical household has 2.6 people.-No benchmarks-Opposition MLAs says they have many questions about the tax.Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark supports action on climate change but said there are no benchmarks to measure the success on the carbon tax, particularly on getting pipelines built. "Acting on climate change is important, but ensuring that we understand not just the benefits but the costs of that is really incumbent on government," he said..The government estimates the carbon tax will reduce greenhouse gases by 30 megatonnes in the first few years, moving up to 50 megatonnes over today's numbers in 2030.Clark said the targets Canada agreed to in Paris suggests Alberta would have to reduce emissions even more. The Wildrose Party has estimated the carbon tax will cost the average Alberta household $1,000 in direct and indirect costs.Wildrose Leader Brian Jean said the tax will hurt families and make Alberta less competitive. "It's time for the NDP government to rethink this carbon tax, to reconsider it, and really truly consider the impact it will have on everyday working Alberta families who were not asking for it and did not expect it as it was not campaigned for in last year's election," he said. Jean said a Wildrose government would refute claims that Alberta oil is the dirtiest in the world. He said they would also move Alberta towards the use of natural gas and clean coal technology.
Carbon tax will cost Alberta families at least $1,000, Wildrose says-'Why we are going to such great lengths ... is beyond belief,' Brian Jean says-By Michelle Bellefontaine, CBC News Posted: Apr 18, 2016 12:00 PM MT Last Updated: Apr 18, 2016 3:08 PM MT
Alberta's NDP government is hiding the true effects of the carbon tax, which could cost families at least $1,000 more each year, Wildrose Leader Brian Jean said Monday.Although low- and middle-income Albertans will receive rebates on the tax when it starts Jan. 1, 2017, Jean said they still will pay up to $700 extra.Jean said the tax is just a money grab and noted the government has provided no information on how the measure will reduce emissions.He called on the government to delay the tax until the full economic impact can be studied."[The tax is] certainly not required by the international community. It's not required by the federal government," Jean said."And why we are going to such great lengths to be better than anybody else in the world by far, to punish our own competitiveness, is beyond belief."Details of the carbon tax were released in Thursday's budget.Full and partial rebates will be offered to singles earning up to $51,250 net income annually and couples earning up to $100,000.The net income cutoff for couples with two children is $101,000. Rebates will rise in 2018, when the carbon levy increases to $30 a tonne from $20.The government has said people will see extra costs at the gas pump and on their home heating bills. The money collected will be invested in green infrastructure, energy efficiency programs and clean energy research. Jean cited data from the Canadian Tax Journal that said a $30 carbon tax will increase electricity prices by 7.5 per cent, food costs by two per cent and the shelter costs by 1.2 per cent.Jean said the initiative will do little or nothing to change people's behaviour.Environment Minister Shannon Phillips rejected the numbers used by the Wildrose, which she said come from a Canada-wide study written three years ago. She said the cost for an average family will be $500, with 60 per cent of Alberta households getting a full rebate.She said the study doesn't take into account the Specified Gas Emitter Regulation, which came into effect in 2007 and requires facilities that emit 100,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gases a year to reduce their emissions intensity.Phillips said the Wildrose also didn't factor in additional programs the government will fund from the carbon tax. "The way that this data is presented by the Wildrose is sloppy, it is intellectually lazy, and it does not apply to Alberta," Phillips said. Jean said municipalities will bear the cost, which will translate into higher taxes. But Phillips said cities and towns will benefit from policies that build green infrastructure and expand transit. Phillips said the carbon tax, phase-out of coal and methane reduction in the oil and gas sector should reduce emissions by 30 to 35 megatonnes from where things were under the previous government.
How to sell a carbon tax to Canadians-Using the B.C. model, new study looks at the dos and don'ts of introducing a carbon tax-By Margo McDiarmid, environment reporter, CBC News Posted: Feb 19, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 19, 2015 6:39 AM ET
If you want to bring in carbon tax that actually works, the folks at Clean Energy Canada have some helpful tips for you.Such as: don't introduce the new tax during the time of year when gas prices are the highest; and be prepared that a lot of people and businesses won't love the idea and won't be afraid to say so. Clean Energy Canada, a think-tank that focuses on clean renewable energy, conducted interviews with 13 people involved in crafting British Columbia's carbon tax in 2008, a list that included politicians, business representatives, academics and environmental groups."We wanted to get a look behind the curtain and find out how do you do something like this," said Clare Demerse, the author of the report that came out of those studies.The result is a report on the lessons learned about pricing pollution — a concept that still scares many politicians.-B.C.'s carbon tax a first-B.C. was the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce an economy-wide price on carbon. It has since become viewed internationally as a textbook example of how to introduce a carbon price that can actually work.Now into its seventh year, the policy is fully implemented. The province has met its targets to cut greenhouse gas pollution and the economy is humming along with another budget surplus this year. "Now I'm not saying it's because of the tax, but it means the tax has not held them back," said Demerse, who is senior policy adviser with Clean Energy Canada.-Clare Demerse-Clare Demerse is senior policy adviser at Clean Energy Canada, and the author of the report that looked at the introduction of B.C.'s carbon tax in 2008. (Clean Energy Canada)-The group's report comes amid a growing debate in Canada over how to control carbon pollution.The federal NDP, for example, supports a national cap and trade system like the one now operating in Quebec. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau recently proposed a national carbon pricing plan that he compared to medicare, in which Ottawa would set national targets and enforce principles, but leave provinces to design their own systems.The federal Conservatives have consistently called a carbon tax a job-killing tax on everything. Last December, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons it was a "crazy" idea. -Not for the faint of heart-But Demerse said that hasn't been the experience in B.C."The carbon tax has become institutionalized in B.C. where no one is talking about getting rid of it," she said in an interview.That doesn't mean it hasn't been difficult. In fact, a main takeaway from the report is a carbon tax is not for the faint of heart.B.C.'s carbon tax covers nearly 70 per cent of the province's carbon pollution that comes from burning coal, oil or natural gas.It started out at $10 for every tonne of carbon and has increased to $30 a tonne. It is levied on fuel wholesalers, who pass it on to retailers, who pass it on to consumers. The idea is to encourage people and businesses to change their habits and choose cleaner fuels.Gas prices in B.C. are now seven cents a litre higher because of the tax.But the report says the simple, gradual approach at the beginning has helped the tax succeed."$10 a tonne was chosen because it was low enough to be non-threatening," the report notes. B.C.'s former Liberal premier Gordon Campbell was the one who introduced the carbon tax in 2008. He resigned abruptly two years later following a highly controversial move to align the provincial sales tax with the GST. ((CBC))Another the key is that the tax is revenue neutral — every dollar collected has to be returned to residents and businesses through tax cuts.In fact, the provincial finance minister has to take a 15 per cent pay cut if the tax is not revenue neutral in every budget.Businesses liked that idea and in turn supported the tax. But it's also become B.C.'s biggest challenge when it comes to voters.Many people didn't trust it and still don't understand it, said Demerse.One problem was probably the timing. B.C. politicians laugh about it now, Demerse says, but the initial carbon tax was introduced on July 1, 2008, the time of year when the price of gas is the highest and people drive the most.Another problem was that "a huge number of voters said 'I just don't believe it is actually revenue neutral,' it didn't convince them that the government said it," she said.Partly that is because people don't get a cheque back in the mail, she says. Instead they get a tax credit once a year, which many don't notice.One result of this is that the province has had to bring new exemptions to the tax, such as providing an annual $200 benefit for northern and rural homeowners who felt they were being hit hard by the increased cost of fuel.Demerse said she considers it a lesson for any other jurisdiction thinking of doing the same thing. "You can't just announce it and one day, put up a couple of people to speak to it and then go away," she said. "You are going to be explaining this and defending this for a long time."
Ontario’s carbon tax: Too late to do good?-Global News - Web Producer - James Armstrong-By James Armstrong-National Online Supervising Editor, Breaking News Global News
TORONTO – Ontario has been thinking about a carbon tax since 2008. By the time it’s unveiled later this year, it may be too late to do much good.But whether it works depends largely on whether the province is willing to back out of existing regulations governing the province’s energy sector, says University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick.“A carbon tax only makes sense if it’s introduced instead of all the other climate policies,”he said in an interview Tuesday.“B.C. didn’t go for a Green Energy Act kind of approach. They didn’t throw a whole lot of money intro wind and solar and regulations like that. So there’s a bit of a case to be made for them to go the carbon tax route.”Premier Dalton McGuinty introduced Ontario’s Green Energy Act in 2009 to force the province to shift to renewable energy and away from coal.If Ontario returned to its 2000 electricity system – a mix of coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro – a carbon tax could make sense, increasing the cost of coal relative to gas and hydro.But what the Ontario government has done instead, he said, is force the shift away from coal while also forcing in wind farms and extra gas (which compensates for the lower amount of energy produced by wind).“They’re forcing people to use gas, then they’re putting a tax on top of it, all it’s going to do is basically be a tax on policies that were forced in place,” McKitrick said.“It’s too late for Ontario. I mean, they’ll raise money for it, of course. … But it’s too late for them to use it as an efficient policy mechanism unless they’re prepared to back out of all the inefficient policy mechanisms that they’ve put in place through regulation.”Ontario Environment and Climate Change Minister Glenn Murray told The Globe and Mail the Liberal government is “looking at how we can transition Ontario to a low-carbon economy through initiatives such as setting a price on carbon.”He wouldn’t say whether the plan was a cap-and-trade model or a carbon tax similar to British Columbia’s, but did say it would be unveiled later this year and include cleaner fuel standards and energy conservation policies.In an email response to Global News late Tuesday afternoon, the minister said in a statement that Ontario’s climate strategy hasn’t been determined yet but will “set the path to help us reach an 80 per cent reduction in [Greenhouse Gas] emissions by 2050.”Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller suggested that if Ontario wants a carbon tax, the government should look to the carbon tax in British Columbia and not Quebec and California.“A carbon tax is a good thing when they do like they did in British Columbia,” Miller said at a Tuesday morning press conference. “Which is, you tax things that emit bad stuff in the atmosphere and you give the money back to the people. And that is why they have one of the most successful carbon taxes certainly on the continent, if not the world.”There are two main types of carbon tax: a revenue neutral model and a cap-and-trade model.The B.C. carbon tax is revenue neutral. The province puts a $30 levy on each tonne of carbon emissions – about 7 cents on a litre of gasoline – and in turn, reduces income tax for residents by an equivalent amount.“We’re taxing the bad things and relieving the tax on the good things that we want to encourage,” Miller said.And it appears to be working. According to The Globe and Mail, fuel use in the province has dropped by 16 per cent while increasing everywhere else in Canada.The carbon tax in Quebec and California is cap-and-trade. The two jurisdictions limit how much carbon a company can use. If the company wants to use more, it must buy credits from a company that has some left over.The cap-and-trade model has been used around the world – sometimes effectively, according to the David Suzuki foundation. The United States implemented one in the 1990s to reduce acid rain; the European Union implemented one in 2005 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and Tokyo launched its own cap and trade system in 2010 with a goal of reducing emissions 25 per cent below 200 levels by 2020.
Pennsylvania judge orders Cosby to trial on sexual assault charge-[Reuters]-By Joseph Ax-May 24, 2016-YAHOONEWS
NORRISTOWN, Pa. (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday ordered comedian Bill Cosby to stand trial on accusations of sexual assault, the most serious setback so far for a man who epitomized the all-American dad on the 1980s sitcom "The Cosby Show."Judge Elizabeth McHugh found that prosecutors presented enough evidence to support allegations that he drugged and assaulted a woman in 2004. The judge rejected arguments from Cosby's defense lawyers that the case should be thrown out.As the hearing concluded, McHugh wished Cosby luck, to which the 78-year-old entertainer responded, "Thank you."The decision followed a 3-1/2 hour preliminary hearing in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, where prosecutors introduced statements that Cosby and the woman, Andrea Constand, separately gave to police in 2005.Constand herself was not called to testify, although prosecutors said she is prepared to appear as a trial witness.She told police in 2005 she was attacked as she lay on a sofa at Cosby's Philadelphia-area home "paralyzed" by drugs the entertainer had given her, according to police.Constand, a former basketball coach at Cosby's Temple University alma mater, is the only woman whose accusations of sexual assault have resulted in criminal charges against Cosby.But Cosby has been hit by sexual assault allegations from more than 50 women. He has denied assaulting anyone. Most of the cases are too old to be prosecuted, but the entertainer faces civil lawsuits from his accusers.A trial date in the Pennsylvania criminal case has not yet been set. Cosby faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted of the most serious charge against him, aggravated indecent assault.In his own 2005 interview with police from Cheltenham, Pennsylvania, Cosby confirmed some details of Constand's account.He acknowledged giving Constand 1-1/2 pills of the antihistamine Benadryl to relax her and said the two engaged in heavy "petting," including fondling each other's genitals, Cheltenham Police Chief John Norris testified.According to Constand's statements, Cosby told her the pills would help "take the edge off." She swallowed the pills, added a sip of wine and told the comedian, "I trust you," the detective said.Cosby told police Constand was conscious during the incident, never told him to stop and did not mention any ill effects from the pills, Norris said.-COSBY NOT GUILTY, LAWYER SAYS-Brian McMonagle, Cosby's lawyer, said after the hearing that prosecutors relied on an 11-year-old "hearsay" statement rather than present a live witness because their case was weak. He expressed confidence Cosby would be absolved."Mr. Cosby is not guilty of any crime and not one single fact presented by (prosecutors) rebuts this truth," McMonagle said.The judge said McHugh said state law permits prosecutors to introduce hearsay evidence at a preliminary hearing.Cosby's lawyers repeatedly questioned the accuracy of Constand's account, in what is likely a preview of their trial strategy.McMonagle pointed to discrepancies between Constand's initial interview with a detective and her later written statement, including her inability to recall precisely when the incident occurred.He also said she had consensual sexual encounters with Cosby on other occasions, had dinner with Cosby after the alleged assault and later took her family to see his show in Toronto, Canada.A stand-up comedian, Cosby landed a breakthrough role on the 1960s TV show "I Spy," becoming a rare black actor with a leading part on a network television series. He went on to other shows and became a pitchman for Jell-O pudding while also stirring controversy with critical comments about black youth culture.(Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Dan Trotta)
Trump, Clinton win Washington state's presidential primaries-[The Canadian Press]-Stephen OhlemacHer, The Associated Press-May 25, 2016-YAHOONEWS
WASHINGTON - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump each won primaries in Washington state Tuesday.Trump's win helps him inch closer to clinching the GOP nomination for president. He is within 41 delegates of the number needed to become the Republican nominee.Clinton's win might give her some momentum, but it won't get her any delegates. There were no delegates at stake in the Democratic primary. Washington Democrats already awarded their delegates based on party caucuses.Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders won Washington's caucuses in March, getting 74 delegates. Clinton got 27.Republicans in Washington will allocate all 44 delegates to their national convention based on the primary results.Trump won at least 27 delegates on Tuesday, with 17 still left to be allocated. The billionaire businessman has 1,196 delegates. It takes 1,237 delegates to win the GOP nomination.There are no more Republican contests until June 7, when the last five states vote. With a total of 303 delegates at stake in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota, Trump should easily clinch the nomination that day.Trump is the only remaining candidate in the GOP contest. But his former opponents, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, were still on the ballot because they suspended their campaigns after the ballots were printed. Ben Carson was also on the ballot because he never submitted the paperwork to have his name removed.Sanders trails Hillary Clinton in the delegate count and he is running out of contests in his longshot bid to catch up.Clinton is just 78 delegates short of clinching the Democratic nomination for president. She is on track to do so in early June, even if she loses all the remaining contests.Clinton has 1,768 pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. Sanders has 1,497.Clinton's lead is even bigger when superdelegate endorsements are included. These are the party leaders and elected officials who can support the candidate of their choice.Overall, Clinton has 2,305 delegates and Sanders has 1,539. It takes 2,383 delegates to win the Democratic nomination.___Follow Stephen Ohlemacher on Twitter at http://twitter.com/stephenatap
China to protect IP, won't over-regulate innovation: Premier Li-[Reuters]-May 24, 2016-YAHOONEWS
BEIJING (Reuters) - China will focus on protecting intellectual property and commercial secrets, while offering a fair playing field for both domestic and foreign companies, premier Li Keqiang said on Tuesday at a technology summit.Li also said that new innovations should be given room to grow, free from over-regulation, even if new and traditional industries sometimes run into conflict.China is pushing entrepreneurship and innovation to encourage economic growth, although government oversight and support for state firms remains strong."We should not regulate new things to death, but should first observe. This gives them a chance to develop, which also helps expose gaps in regulation and will make subsequent policies more fair and effective," Li said at the conference, according to a report on a government website.China is backing a new round of opening its economy to overseas industry, and welcomes foreign companies expanding in China, especially in the less-developed central and western regions of the country, Li said.The China Big Data Expo is being held in Guizhou, a southwestern province that is one of China's poorest but which is aiming to be a center for the big data industry.Dell Inc chief executive Michael Dell, Tencent chairman Ma Huateng, Foxconn chief Terry Gou and other tech executives attended the summit with Li.(Reporting by Elias Glenn)
MODERATE ISLAM-A LIE FROM THE PITS OF HELL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyotLRHMOIk
Even Leftist, Atheist Richard Dawkins: Islam is NOT a Race…He is an equal opportunity basher of all things theistic.Louder With Crowder - May 25, 2016-INFOWARS
Say what you will about the atheistic, left-wing darling Richard Dawkins, but you have to give credit where credit is due. He is an equal opportunity basher of all things theistic.But this time the Christ-hating progressive dismantled political correctness, as it relates to Islam. With surgical precision:The controversial atheist academic, 75, argued the public was too worried about being viewed as racist and claimed it is absurd to be accused of racism for criticising Islam.Dawkins said this was the result of an “absurd double standard” in the Western world which means people are more anxious about attacking Islam than Christianity.“People are terrified of being thought racist,” he told The Times. “There’s an awful confusion in many people’s minds. They think Islam is a race, which of course it isn’t”.Firstly, the obvious:When Dawkins or Bill Maher put Christians, or even Christ himself, on blast, leftists cackle like hyenas. They’re just less appealing than said hyenas. But the moment someone cracks a Muhammed joke? They turn paler than Conan O’Brien. Welcome to the double-standard club. It’s standing-room only.Dawkins is totally right. We’ve been echoing each other on this point since practically the crusades: Islam is not a race. Islam is a religion. More importantly, Islam is an ideology. It’s an ideology with an ever-growing body count. That’s if you can count bodies accurately post suicide bomb.TeamAmerica1-But to say such things is deemed “Islamophobia.” Worth noting, the fear of being labled a racist or an “Islamophobe” kind of sort of led to the San Bernardino killers getting away with murder. Yes, really. Read Woman Didn’t Report Muslim San Bernardino Killer… Guess Why… This same fear of being labelled racist keeps us from having an honest conversation about Islam and how it fits with the rest of the world in the 21st century. Spoiler alert: Islam, as it currently stands, doesn’t fit the 21st century. At least not in Western civilization’s idea of the 21st century.Dr. Dawkins understands that much. Until we heed his words and purge political correctness from our collective minds, expect more of the same. The same being leftists fearing to use the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” in the same sentence, while girls are being raped by Muslim migrants and infidels are being blown up.Of course criticizing Islam is the norm for these parts of the internet. Behold, criticizing Islam before it was cool:
