Dung Street - San Fran Loses $64 Mil After Convention Moves Due to "Street Conditions"

by Daniel Greenfield


I'm not up on corporate speak, but is "poor street conditions" a euphemism for wallowing in human waste while being assaulted by crazy people?

Oracle’s OpenWorld conference, one of the biggest annual technology events in San Francisco, is moving to Las Vegas in 2020 and will remain in Sin City for at least three years.

According to an email that the San Francisco Travel Association (SFTA) sent to its members on Monday, Oracle has signed a three-year agreement to bring its flagship event to the Caesars Forum in Las Vegas.

“Oracle stated that their attendee feedback was that San Francisco hotel rates are too high,” the email, which was viewed by CNBC, said. “Poor street conditions was another reason why they made this difficult decision.”

The SFTA, a private nonprofit organization that promotes San Francisco tourism, said it’s issuing a cancellation bulletin, covering five days and over 62,000 room nights in October 2020, October 2021 and September 2022.

“The estimated economic impact of each of the above is $64,000,000, a huge loss for our city,” the email said.

$64 million? What's the big deal? SF is projected to have a $643.9 million budget deficit five years from now. That's just a tenth of it.

Meanwhile San Fran can double down on the disease, the human waste, and catering to the mentally ill and the drug addicts who are its new base.

Jeff Sessions Highlights 'Stunning Development' in IG Report: FBI Lawyer Fudging FISA Docs

By Joe Saunders


It’s a finding that’s being virtually ignored by the mainstream media, but for former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, it’s the one that really stood out.


In the almost 500 pages of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report that found the FBI’s investigation of President Donald Trump and the Trump presidential campaign was riddled with problems, it was the one solid assertion of deliberate misconduct.

An FBI lawyer had falsified documents for the special court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to obscure the fact that Trump campaign aide Carter Page had a history of working as “an operational contact” for another agency of the government.

The other agency wasn’t identified in the report, but presumably, it was the CIA. The kind of information Page provided was identified, however — it was about his contacts with a Russian intelligence officer.

Even worse, the FBI had used information about Page’s contact with the Russian as evidence against him in the FISA application while “failing to disclose” that that contact had been authorized by another U.S. agency. (The Horowitz report, page ix.)

Apparently, because that might have made the FISA court judges wonder why the FBI was now investigating a man with a history of helping a U.S. intelligence agency, that bit of information was removed from a surveillance warrant application – a move Sessions called “stunning.”

“I would say about that is that in my experience, as 15 years as a federal prosecutor, I’ve never seen anything like that,” Sessions told Fox News host Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle” on Wednesday.

“I think that’s a stunning development in the seriousness of a FISA warrant involving a presidential campaign.”
“Stunning” barely begins to describe it, yet most mainstream media coverage of the Horowitz report is going to some pains to downplay or ignore the fact.

Reuters, for instance, shoehorned a reference to it into the 10th paragraph of a 20 paragraph story helpfully headlined “Mistakes, but No Political Bias in FBI Probe of Trump Campaign: Watchdog.”

Other news outlets, when they mentioned it at all, generally referred to an FBI lawyer “altering” documentation to the FISA court surveillance applications without explaining exactly what was altered or the level of deception involved.
But it’s tough to see an alteration like that as a “mistake,” as the Reuters headline would imply.

It’s also tough to see how, considering every “mistake” and omission documented in the Horowitz report ran in the direction of attempting to show Trump and the Trump campaign in the worst possible light, all of this doesn’t add up to evidence of bias.
This is the same FBI, remember, that was home to the viper’s nest of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. It’s a rogue’s gallery of anti-Trump partisans and anti-Trump sentiment — some of it vicious.

And Democrats and the mainstream media seriously want the American people to believe that there was no bias involved — when a lawyer for the FBI is apparently deliberately altering documents that are going before a judge?

Sensible Americans wouldn’t buy that. And Jeff Sessions — a once and possibly future Alabama senator — is even more sensible than most. He said further investigation being ordered by Attorney General William Barr and being conducted by John Durham, the federal prosecutor for Connecticut, is likely to bring out the truth. 

“We have to know how this happened. There’s every right for that to occur,” Sessions told Ingraham near the end of Wednesday’s interview. “Just as the president is said to be not above the law, neither are the intelligence officers, or FBI agents, or lawyers in the Department of Justice or any other agency.

“So Mr. Durham has to get to the bottom of this, else the American people will not accept the results.”

No, they won’t, no matter how the mainstream media tries to spin it.

Climate Alarmists Foiled: No U.S. Warming Since 2005

When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, according to updated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials. 

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.


Temperature readings from 2005 (far left) to the present (far right) show absolutely no warming.

Climate activists frequently visit or mention particular regions, states, or places in the United States and claim warming impacts are evident, accelerating, and unmistakable. Yet how can that be when there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005?

Unfortunately, when politicians and climate activists claim they can see the impacts of climate change in a particular place, the media rarely question them on it and tend to accept the claims at face value. But the objective temperature data show no recent warming has occurred. 

There is also good reason to believe U.S. temperatures have not warmed at all since the 1930s. Raw temperature readings at the preexisting stations indicate temperatures are the same now as 80 years ago. All of the asserted U.S. warming since 1930 is the product of the controversial adjustments made to the raw data. Skeptics point out that as the American population has grown, so has the artificial warming signal generated by growing cities, more asphalt, more automobiles, and more machinery.

If anything, the raw temperature readings should be adjusted downward today relative to past temperatures (or past temperatures adjusted upward in comparison to present temperatures) rather than the other way around. If raw temperature readings are the same today as they were 80 years ago, when there were fewer artificial factors spuriously raising temperature readings, then U.S. temperatures today may actually be cooler than they were in the early 20th century.

The lack of warming in the United States during the past 14 years is not too different from satellite-measured global trends. Globally, satellite instruments report temperatures have risen merely 0.15 degrees Celsius since 2005, which is less than half the pace predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate models.

Climate crisis advocates attempt to dismiss the minor satellite-measured warming by utilizing ground temperature stations around the globe, which tend to have even more corrupting biases and problems than the old U.S. stations. Of course, they adjust those readings, as well. Perhaps the time has come for American officials to direct some of the billions of dollars spent each year on climate-research and climate-change programs to building and maintaining a global Climate Reference Network.

Either way, it is becoming increasingly difficult for American politicians and climate activists to say they can see the effects of warming temperatures in the United States. For at least the past 14 years, there have been no such warming temperatures.




James Taylor (JTaylor@heartland.orgis director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.