Why, Yes, There Is Another ‘Climate Change’ March Saturday

Isn’t it fantastic that lots of Warmists will take fossil fueled trips, use lots of energy, kill lots of trees to make signs, etc?

(Climate Central) For the second weekend in a row, Washington, D.C. will be home to people clamoring for policies based on science. But unlike the March for Science, this weekend’s People’s Climate March will be overtly political and put a sharp focus on climate change and justice.

Wait, if last weekend’s wasn’t overtly political, what with all its “pussy hats”, Trump Derangement Syndrome, social justice this and that, among others, I can’t imagine how political this one will be.

One goal of the march will be to remind the president that those rollbacks don’t represent what the majority of Americans want when it comes to climate change. The march route will circle the White House, serving as a visual reminder to its occupants that the public is watching what happens within its gated grounds.

The march is focused on politics, but driven by science that shows climate change impacts are becoming increasingly clear even as the time to stave off the worst impacts is running perilously short. It’s the strongest link to the March for Science, which took place on Earth Day.

So, they’ll take lots of those aforementioned fossil fueled trips to complain. Think Trump will even pay attention? Heck, he might not even be there.

“April 30 is more important than April 29,” Getsos said. “One of the goals of this week is to get people energized and excited and in relationships so they are going back to their community to take on fights and campaigns around climate and climate justice.”

And they’ll use lots of fossil fuels to spread awareness and annoy everyone.

Read: Why, Yes, There Is Another ‘Climate Change’ March Saturday »

If All You See…

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

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on Portland’s Rose Parade being cancelled because of the threat of Leftist violence.

Read: If All You See… »

Raleigh N&O: It Rained A Lot, Hence, ‘Climate Change’ Doom Or Something

How much rain did we get in Raleigh?

Those buckets are full. The gray one is something like a 3-4 gallon bucket. According to the Editorial Board of the Raleigh News and Observer, this means pure doom

After the deluge, worries about climate change

The relentless rain that flooded parts of the Triangle earlier this week is gone and the waters have receded, but a worry should remain: the climate is changing.

The Triangle and the nation are experiencing extreme weather more often. The fluke event is not so much of a fluke.

On Monday, rain gauges at Raleigh-Durham International Airport recorded 4.51 inches of rain. The previous record for that day – April 24 – was 1.55 inches, a record that had stood since 1944. The deluge also shattered the record for any day in the rainy month of April – 3.37 inches on April 26, 1978. The area is on track to finish the month with twice the normal rainfall.

And it’s not just rain that’s abnormal. On Feb, 17 in Raleigh, the temperature hit 83 degrees. The previous record was 75 in 1999. The average temperature in February was 59.9 degrees, the warmest ever recorded. It broke a record that had stood since 1890.

A couple points: first, this is in no way proof of anthropogenic climate change/global warming. Actually, that’s the only point that matters. Few are debating that there hasn’t been global warming. As I say again and again, the debate is on causation. The N&O EB doesn’t even attempt to provide proof that Mankind is responsible.

Weather events happen. There will always be records set. But, when it comes to “extreme weather”, the data actually shows that it’s declining and/or near record lows.

Oh, and what happened to the meme from members of the Cult of Climastrology that weather isn’t climate?

Read: Raleigh N&O: It Rained A Lot, Hence, ‘Climate Change’ Doom Or Something »

Texas House Passes Strong Anti-Sanctuary Jurisdictions Bill

Democrats have been caterwauling about Texas making this push for quite some time, throwing out the word racist, going on hunger strikes for a few short days, and just creating their normal mayhem as they attempt to defend law breakers and invaders. But, this is Texas

(The Texas Tribune) After more than 16 hours of debate, the Texas House of Representatives early Thursday morning tentatively gave a nod to the latest version of a Senate bill that would ban “sanctuary” jurisdictions in Texas.

The 93-54 vote fell along party lines and came after one of the slowest moving but most emotional legislative days at the state Capitol. (snip)

Members voted on the bill after adding back a controversial provision that extends the scope of the bill and allows local peace officers to question the immigration status of people they legally detain. The original House version of the bill only allowed officers to inquire about status during a lawful arrest. (snip)

The bill keeps a provision that makes sheriffs, constables and police chiefs subject to a Class A misdemeanor for failing to cooperate with federal authorities and honor requests from immigration agents to hold noncitizen inmates subject to removal. It also keeps civil penalties for entities in violation of the provision that begin at $1,000 for a first offense and swell to as high as $25,500 for each subsequent infraction.”

This is probably the strongest anti-sanctuary jurisdiction bill in the country. Many Republican controlled states are pushing ones which would strip some funding from cities and counties which protect illegal aliens. Some, like the one in North Carolina, will not be enacted, due to having a Democratic Party governor.

Before debate on actual policy started, Democrats tried their best to tug at Republican heartstrings in hopes of diluting what they labeled an “intentionally” racist proposal.

State Rep. Ana Hernandez, D-Houston, recounted through tears how she was undocumented for years after her visa expired when she was growing up.

She was followed by state Rep. Victoria Neave, D-Dallas, who’s been fasting in protest of the bill since she last attended church on Sunday. She said she’s received hate mail telling her to “die” and “starve.”

Get the Whaaaa-bulance. Why is it that Democrats are taking the sides of people who are here in violation of the law, and many who commit more violations of the law which often harm U.S. citizens and legal residents? Hernandez and Neave and the rest should resign, as they are failing to uphold their oaths of office to follow the law and Constitutions of the US and Texas.

Either way, Democrats said they intend to keep fighting. During his floor speech, the usually mild-mannered Rep. Eddie Lucio III, D-Brownsville, warned Republicans: “Do not mess with us today.”

They’ll keep fighting for law breakers. What’s in it for Democrats? That’s the question. And the answer is more voters. Think they actually care about illegals? Of course not.

The House version has a provision that forces college campus administrators to comply with the bill, which Democrats have argued could get college students deported for relatively minor offenses such as being a minor in possession of alcohol.

We shouldn’t have people unlawfully present in the United States attending college on the legal taxpayer’s money to start with.

The changes to the bill are enough that it will have to go to conference with the Texas Senate before going to Governor Abbott’s desk, where his is sure to sign it.

Read: Texas House Passes Strong Anti-Sanctuary Jurisdictions Bill »

Hugh Hewitt: Conservatives Have A Lot To Celebrate In Trump’s 100 Days

Leftist media outlets have been pushing the meme that Trump failed in his first 100 days for weeks now. You can’t go a day at most without seeing several articles (thinly veiled opinion pieces) and opinion pieces on the subject. Now comes Hugh Hewitt, who was originally dead set against Donald Trump, until it became inevitable that he would be the GOP nominee, then started making the argument that, regardless of Trump’s beliefs (Conservative Review writer Steve Deace slammed Trump as a Typical NYC liberal in a seemingly now pulled article, which I have saved in Pocket if you want to read it), that if there is one reason to vote Trump for conservatives, it is the Supreme Court. Certainly, it was better to take the chance on Trump than give Hillary Clinton the picks for the court, right?

Trump’s first 100 days give conservatives a lot to celebrate

Sea change. An enormous one. That’s the only way to understand President Trump’s first 100 days — as a breaking from and often a breaking of the Obama presidency, one every bit as turbulent as what’s encountered by a sailing ship going from calm seas into a hurricane.

Trump’s first 50 days were a jumble of ups and downs, mostly downs. But beginning with the flawless testimony of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Senate Judiciary Committee and his subsequent confirmation under rules that will speed the way for future Supreme Court nominees, the Trump turnaround began and gained an almost uninterrupted momentum. The president’s directive to strike Syria after it apparently rained sarin poison on babies and toddlers was a defining moment, reinforced by using the “mother of all bombs” in Afghanistan and dispatching an armada of weaponry toward North Korea (no matter how indirect a route the ships took to arrive there).

If there is one thing to celebrate, one big thing, it’s that one. Justice Gorsuch is certainly light years better than anyone Obama or Hillary would have put on the Court. Of course, time will tell when he starts making rulings.

Showing strength internationally upset some on the Trump train, and certainly the liberal anti-war folks who were missing over the last 8 years, but, the crazies around the world respond to strength. Obama certainly had his own use of military power, but, it almost seemed apologetic. Trump did it with strength and bluster, and he has the strength to back up the bluster again.

Hewitt goes on to mention the passage of the Congressional Review Act, which is a pretty big deal, and will help reign in the regulatory state, along with a pretty Conservative leaning cast of characters. Just at the top, think of the job former S.C. governor Nikki Haley is doing, being an unapologetic defender of the United States as our ambassador to the America hating United Nations.

He does go on to note a few unforced errors, such as the immigration order on visitors from countries which export Islamic extremism, going after the “so-called judge’, refusing to release the White House logs, and a few others.

Trump’s most significant setback — the collapse of the repeal and replacement of Obamacare — is not yet a conclusive defeat. And a spate of executive orders has set the stage for regulatory relief across the federal government. Could Trump have done better? Of course. But what he has done is without question of historic and lasting impact.

He’s right in that there is time to deal with Ocare. Will he, and the GOP controlled Congress, have the will to do it? Will they push the right plan? He could have done more, such as an executive order whacking the contraception mandate and others which were enacted by HHS which never went through full rulemaking process, but, remember, he did tell the IRS to disregard going after people who didn’t have insurance.

One thing Hewitt doesn’t mention is Trump’s push on illegal immigration. There may be no wall going up anytime soon, but, his threats and unleashing of ICE has reduced the flow of illegals, and is seeing plenty of illegals detained and deported. He’s appointed lots more judges to adjudicate deportation cases quicker. He’s put sanctuary cities on notice.

His record on ‘climate change’ is mixed. He still has time, though.

If anything, remember Justice Gorsuch. That’s one that will last for quite some time.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hugh Hewitt: Conservatives Have A Lot To Celebrate In Trump’s 100 Days »

Is Trump Planning On Staying In Paris Climate Agreement?

There’s lots of chatter going on as to whether Mr. Trump will keep his campaign promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. Some in his administration are recommending he pull out, some to stay in. Some elected Republicans are recommending he stay in, even after they were dead set against it. You know, the normal squishiness from Republicans

(AFP)  Signs are mounting that US President Donald Trump’s administration may stay in the landmark Paris climate change accord of 2015, under pressure from big business and public support for the agreement.

But experts say the final decision, expected next month, is anything but certain, and staying at the table could come with significant caveats, like a weakening of US commitments to curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Given the unpredictability of decision-making by this administration, I am very reluctant to predict,” said Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

“But there does seem to be a growing convergence around a strategy of staying in the Paris Agreement but lowering the US target.”

The agreement would pretty much do nothing in terms of stopping the Earth from hitting the magical 2C mark, and many Warmists want more, to keep it to 1.5C. Surprise. This will harm economies, hurt jobs, and no one profits but the big wig rich people who push it.

The latest word on the administration’s stance came from Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who said Tuesday he would not advise Trump to abandon the deal but rather renegotiate it.

That statement aligned Perry, the former governor of Texas, with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who formerly headed ExxonMobil and has spoken in favor of honoring the US commitment to the Paris deal, struck in 2015 and signed by more than 190 countries.

Now, that’s truly upsetting. And the establishment GOP wonders why the voters do not trust them. They backtrack, heck, break promises, entirely too much.

We’ll have to see what Trump’s decision ends up being, but, considering this would have been an easy one to make early, I have little confidence.

Read: Is Trump Planning On Staying In Paris Climate Agreement? »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled machine which doom, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on no tangos for Trump.

Read: If All You See… »

‘Climate Change’ Could Change The Way We Exercise Or Something

The other day we learned that ‘climate change’ could make people more fit. Obviously, cold water needs to be thrown on that notion

Climate change could affect the way we exercise

The extreme changes of weather recently – from a seemingly endless heatwave to seemingly endless rain – affect more than the environment; they also affect the way we move.

For months it has often felt too hot or too wet to exercise. Long walks and runs have been replaced by cabin fever, indoor yoga classes and finally trying out some of the new livestream fitness classes you can do from your lounge (some Australian ones worth checking out include Varlah, Voome, Yogaholics and The Robards Method).

In other words, this is a 1st World Problem of people getting wimpy.

But, generally, for many of us during times of extreme weather conditions, we simply become more sedentary, exchanging the walk to work with the car or swapping the bicycle for the bus. Whether it’s lethargy from heat or an instinct to bunker down from the wet, we sit more and do less.

If we do that for too long, there is an impact on our health.

“At a physiological level, too little exercise can produce costly health outcomes like obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes, and insufficient physical activity is a leading cause of death in the United States [it is the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide and the second biggest contributor to cancer in Australia],” say the authors of a new study, published in Nature Human Behaviour.

“Extreme weather” has not increased, no matter how much scaremongering the Cult Of Climastrology performs. And this is simply a continuation of the doom and gloom prognostications from the CoC. Sure, rain and heat affect people going outside. That’s always happened. It gets hot in North Carolina. That’s the norm, shockingly. Instead of biking or jogging during the heat of the day, I’ll do it in the evening (though I prefer going to the gym anyhow, as I can read while on an exercise machine). Get this: people adapt. If some people can’t deal with a measly 1.4F increase in average temperatures since 1850, well, they should wonder why they are so wimpy.

“Ultimately, most of the social impacts of climate change are likely to be negative,” Obradovich and Fowler conclude.

“Climate change may reduce economic output, amplify rates of conflict, produce psychological distress, increase exposure to the social effects of drought and increase heat-related mortality and morbidity, among other illnesses. However, climatic changes are unlikely to be uniformly costly to society, and it is important to investigate both costs and benefits. Here we uncover a possible beneficial effect of climate change for the United States…

So, future doom. I wonder how past people survived the previous Holocene warm periods? Must have been made of hardier stuff than modern Warmists.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Change The Way We Exercise Or Something »

DHS Launches Office To Help Victims Of Illegal Alien Crimes

What a novel idea, allowing those who have been victimized by those who are unlawfully present in the U.S. to track what’s going on

(Fox News) Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly announced on Wednesday the official launch of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s office for victims of illegal immigrant crime, and a program to help track the custody status of violent, illegal perpetrators.

ICE’s Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office (VOICE) was created in response to President Trump’s executive order to enhance public safety, which directed the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to support victims of crimes committed by criminal aliens.

“All crime is terrible, but these victims are unique — and often too ignored,” Kelly said on Wednesday. “They are casualties of crimes that should never have taken place — because the people who victimized them often times should not have been in the country in the first place.”

Kelly outlined objectives of VOICE, including a “victim-centered approach” to support victims and their families, along with promoting awareness of available services to crime victims, such as the new automated service, DHS-Victim Information and Notification Exchange, which was created to help victims track the immigration custody status of those illegal alien perpetrators of crime.

Part of this is to make sure the victims are kept in the loop on enforcement and deportation status of the illegal(s) who victimized them.

Even before it was officially announced, the editorial board of the USA Today was having a hissy fit. You can bet the ranch that more leftists will come out against supporting victims of illegal alien crime in favor of the illegal aliens committing the crimes.

Read: DHS Launches Office To Help Victims Of Illegal Alien Crimes »

Trump’s Tax Plan Is, Unshockingly, Deemed A Tax Cut For The Rich By Media

Liberals are pretty much one trick ponies. Like the NY Times

White House Proposes Slashing Tax Rates, Significantly Aiding Wealthy

President Trump on Wednesday proposed sharp reductions in individual and business income tax rates and a radical reordering of the tax code that would significantly benefit the wealthy, but he offered no explanation of how the plan would be financed as he rushed to show progress before the 100-day mark of his presidency.

Here’s the question: so what? Why would people keeping more of their own money so they can do things like invest more in their business, use profits to pay their workers work rather than having to give it to the government, and simply have more of the money from the fruit of their hard work? Why is this a concern? Oh, right, Leftists have been taught to hate The Rich, even though most of their leaders are The Rich. How many of them love Rachel Maddow? She makes around $8 million a year for her MSNBC show.

The proposal envisions slashing the tax rate paid by businesses large and small to 15 percent. The number of individual income tax brackets would shrink from seven to three — 10, 25 and 35 percent — easing the tax burden on most Americans, including the president, although aides did not offer the income ranges for each bracket.

Wait, it would “ease the tax burden on most Americans”? I thought this was only about helping out The Rich? No?

Mr. Trump wants to double the standard deduction for individuals, essentially eliminating taxes on around $24,000 of a couple’s earnings. That proposal was met with alarm by home builders and real estate agents, who fear it would disincentivize the purchase of homes. The proposal would scrap most itemized deductions, such as those for state and local tax payments, a valuable break for taxpayers in Democratic states like California and New York.

That’s an interesting paragraph. First, we see it helping out the middle and lower classes. Second, compare it to the draft that Hot Air used of the article

The Trump administration would double the standard deduction, essentially eliminating taxes on the first $24,000 of a couple’s earnings. It also called for the elimination of most itemized tax deductions but would leave in place the popular deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. The estate tax and the alternative minimum tax, which Mr. Trump has railed against for years, would be repealed under his plan.

They apparently had to make the plan more scary by removing the section about keeping the mortgage interest deduction and charitable contributions. In fact, according to Newsdiffs, there have been 10 versions of this same story, including headline changes. The 9:44pm change was virtually a complete rewrite.

Another Times article points out the winners and losers. One of the winners

People who still fill out their tax returns by hand. Administration officials said the plan would simplify paying taxes, particularly emphasizing plans to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. The A.M.T. can definitely be annoying, and costly, but if you use an online tax preparation service, the software does most of the work.

So, mostly middle and lower income who do not have massive amounts of itemization.

And losers

Upper-middle-income people in blue states. The plan would eliminate the federal tax deduction for state and local income tax. If you are in a place where such taxes are high, like New York or California, you would lose a valuable deduction.

That says more about the taxation issues in those states. And

Deficit hawks. The Trump plan doesn’t come with any estimates of its impact on the federal deficit. But his campaign plan, to which the new document is distinctly similar, was estimated by the analysts at the Tax Policy Center to reduce federal revenue by $6.2 trillion over a decade. That implies either a very large increase in the national debt or huge reductions in federal spending.

Well, what has been seen by previous cuts is that more money flows into the government coffers because economic activity increases. But, this should be still paired with not only a reduction in federal spending, starting with a majority of non-essential things and waste, but a reorganization of how money is allocated and spent to reduce necessary spending waste.

For instance, here’s how this often works. An agency was allocated $1 billion last year. This year, they ask for $1.3 billion. Congress says “well, you were very good in spending all your money last year, so, we’ll give you $1.1 billion.” What’s unsaid, though, is that the agency pissed away $200 million because their true operating costs were only $800 million, so, they overpaid for things, they spent it on unneeded things, they overpaid contractors, overpaid bonuses, and so forth. They paid on cost over-runs for contractors, even though a contractor said they would do X for a specific amount of money. They paid for research on shrimp on treadmills.

Instead, the agency is given $700 million and told to get lean, do more with less, just like happens in the private sector. If they truly need more for an emergency, there would be a method to do so. They would have to truly prove that they need the initial money, though.

Regardless, the last people who should be complaining about deficits and the debt are Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump’s Tax Plan Is, Unshockingly, Deemed A Tax Cut For The Rich By Media »

Bad Behavior has blocked 5047 access attempts in the last 7 days.