Will Democrats Run On #MeToo In 2018?

Thomas B. Edsall wonders about the Democrats running on it in an opinion piece that is less opinion and probably more actually political news than most NT Times news stories. This also shows that Democrats will use anything to gain political advantage

Can Democrats Follow #MeToo to Victory?

Many think the issue of sexual harassment — embodied in the #MeToo movement — will work to the advantage of Democrats in upcoming elections. A mid-December NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey gave the party a three to one advantage over Republicans on the matter. But it is hardly guaranteed to do so.

Views of sexual harassment and of gender issues generally differ sharply by age, sex and partisan allegiance — all of which create substantial unpredictability. The issue has the potential to accelerate the growing discontent among well-educated white women with the Republican Party. But it could also intensify hostility to the liberal agenda among conservatives, particularly white men, many of whom view women’s complaints of discrimination as “an attempt to gain advantage” in the workplace.

This complex dynamic is illuminated, for example, in the work of Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, a psychologist at Tufts, who recently reported a growing divergence on gender issues between male and female voters under the age of 30.

I included that last paragraph because Edsall spends a lot of time going through this study, that study, other data, particularly among Democratic Party voter views. Some poo poo the idea of using #MeToo as it is not a unifying idea, others support it. We see that not as many Democrat males care about misogyny for real, and that calls of sexism and misogyny just do not have the power they once did. Even among women it can be polarizing.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster and an expert on the politics of gender, is more optimistic about a positive payoff for Democrats than either Kam or Griffith. In an email, Lake argued that the issue of sexual harassment will motivate young and unmarried women to vote, that it has already helped restore Democratic loyalty among college-educated women and that it will improve prospects for women running for office.

Now, the one thing missing from all this is the notion that the majority of people who have been accused of sexual misconduct are, in fact, Democratic Party supporters. Many of them are big time Democrat donors. It looks like a huge swath of a major Democratic Party industry, Hollywood, is full of sexual harassers and predators. We’ve seen many in the liberal news organizations get accused and even lose their jobs over it. So, while Edsall ends with

In other words, what looks like a favorable climate now for Democrats is in fact highly volatile, particularly when the man in the White House likes to set bonfires.

he forgets to mention the danger of running on #MeToo when your donors are the very thing you’re running against. And, with Trump in office, you can bet he’d make darned sure that everyone knew that the majority of those accused are Democrats.

Read: Will Democrats Run On #MeToo In 2018? »

Say, Is The Climate Change Scam Affecting Your Mental Health?

Not sure about you, but, I’d give a big resounding “no.” Weather happens. But, in Warmist World, things are always doom

Is Climate Change Impacting Your Mental Health?

We already know that climate change comes with major public health implications, like the spread of disease as climate refugees flee their homelands and live in close-packed conditions with inadequate sanitation. What we’re now growing to understand is that this includes not just physical, but also mental health. If world governments don’t rise to the challenge, they could face a human-made mental health crisis on a very large scale.

In other words, if they don’t slap on big taxes/fees, along with making you live your life the way they want you to, we’re doomed.

On the most superficial level, the connection is probably pretty easy to make: Climate change can create stress, which can exacerbate or trigger mental health problems. In addition to depression, people may experience anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and a variety of other intense emotional responses to changing conditions.

Shocking! Weather can create stress. You know, just like always. But, hey, Warmists are rather fragile, and they keep thinking thoughts of Doom, plus, being Leftists, they’re always miserable frricking people, so, doesn’t matter all that much. I wonder how they would do during another little ice age.

Read: Say, Is The Climate Change Scam Affecting Your Mental Health? »

If All You See…

…is a horrible carbon pollution intensive puppy, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Theo Spark, with a post wondering if WHO would lie about sh*tholes.

Read: If All You See… »

It’s Totally Time To Raise The Gas Tax To Help Stop ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

The NY Daily News, which uses vast amounts of fossil fuels to deliver its dead tree edition, is super enthused to raise the gas tax to modify your behavior

This is the moment to hike the gas tax

President Trump recently floated the idea of raising the national gas tax to pay for a possible infrastructure program, but was rebuffed by congressional Republicans. The President is totally right, and Democrats should loudly and proudly stand with him.

It was an idea that was thrown out into the wind by Trump, then he moved on. But, hey, if Democrats want to push raising the federal gas tax, which will lead to a cost of living increase, I’m all for them doing that.

According to most experts, the recently passed tax reform package will increase the enormous federal deficit even if it boosts economic growth. Add to that a large infrastructure program and the problem will only get worse.

How can we deal with the deficit and address the rising threat of climate change as well?

I think they already told us. Taxation!

The U.S. now maintains a federal gas tax of just 18.4 cents — modest compared with most industrialized nations. Britain’s equivalent comes out to nearly $3.50 a gallon. The American tax, started during the Great Depression, hasn’t been raised since 1993.

Now, with gasoline prices much lower than they have been in past years, is a good time to do it.

It is rare we can kill so many birds with one stone.

Nearly all scientists agree that using fossil fuels causes climate change. They say we need to slash our greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 80% or even 90% by 2050.

Making hydrocarbons more expensive will accelerate the development of alternative energy resources such as solar, wind and geothermal power by making them more cost-competitive. The world is moving toward these sources of energy; many countries now aim to eliminate the gasoline-powered engine in the coming decades. Major global cities are doing even more.

Democrats love their taxes. Funny how they don’t like giving up their own use of fossil fuels.

At present, hybrid models like the sleek Tesla or Prius remain too costly for many consumers. Raise the price of gas and they’ll become more appealing.

The Prius is well within the price range of the middle class. Many people choose not to buy it. The Testla’s, though, are above the price range of the typical middle class buyer.

Here comes the double edged bit to the policy proposal

If a gas tax is explained and developed well and implemented gradually — with credits to protect the poor, which are easy enough to build into any plan — it can be appealing across the spectrum.

So, first, artificially increase the cost of gas, which raises the cost of everything, making it harder for the lower and middle classes to afford to travel and purchase items. Then, give them some money from the Helpful Hand Of Government, making them even more reliant on government. Rather insidious.

Read: It’s Totally Time To Raise The Gas Tax To Help Stop ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

AG Jeff Sessions Rips DACA Proposal, Says We Should Be More Like Canada On Immigration

Let’s face it, Democrats do not want to negotiate in good faith: what they want is either a clean DACA bill, which gives citizenship and voting rights to the Dreamers and all their relatives for free, or, to continue bloviating about it, attempting to make this a campaign issue. AG Jeff Sessions wants no part of this

(The Hill) Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday called for stricter immigration laws and increased vetting of individuals entering the U.S. amid a heated debate between Congress and the White House over immigration reform.

“What the American people want, have a right to, and what’s good for America is a lawful system of immigration. And when we admit people to our country, we should be like Canada,” Sessions said on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

“We should evaluate them and make sure they are going to be lawful, they are not threats to us, they have the education and skills level to prosper in America. That’s good for them and good for America,” Sessions added.

I’m not sure why that is so controversial. Virtually every other country has these same requirements, just like they have laws against illegals, and deport them quickly. Why would we want people who would essentially become wards of the state, and do not even speak the language?

A group of six bipartisan senators are expected to release an immigration and border security bill on Wednesday, though the Trump administration has already expressed disapproval for the measure.

The bill is expected to include a solution for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, $2.7 billion for border security — including a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — and changes to the diversity lottery program.

Sessions on Tuesday ripped the proposal, saying it does not have “any prospect of success.” Instead, he called for Congress to support a more aggressive immigration bill presented by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

In essence, that Gang Of 6 bill gives amnesty now for a “promise” of security later. Just like the previous Gang of 8 one, which helped kill the presidential prospects of Marco Rubio. This is the same kind of thing that happened under President Reagan. Sessions also said

Sessions said, “Any time a proposal like a wall or to fix this idea that you can claim you are afraid to go home and you get to stay in the United States, or you have problems where we provide subsidies to people who come illegally. The more you subsidize it, the more you get of something. These kind of failed policies are just never going to work, and the American people don’t believe in it. And we’ve been trying to reform it and every time you come up with a reform that works, gets blocked. And so President Trump has said we need–we have immigration, we want immigration, but we want to vet these people.” 

I’ve said before and I’ll say again, if you want to decrease illegal immigration, and get those who are here to leave, you put massive civil and criminal penalties on those who hire them, employ them, shelter them. You make it illegal to rent to them. You make it illegal to give them any type of state ID or driver’s license. No social services for them. No schooling. We should be taking care of American citizens first. If the illegals love this country, then they should apply for citizenship lawfully and go through the process.

Read: AG Jeff Sessions Rips DACA Proposal, Says We Should Be More Like Canada On Immigration »

NY Times Spins Wheel, Finds Something New To Be Outraged At Trump: Guantanamo Bay

Perhaps the NY Times Editorial Board has become bored with all their other Outrage material. So, they sat around and brainstormed with some martinis and came up with this and a cute graphic

From the link

Even before he took office, President Trump made it clear that no one would be getting out of the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, on his watch. They were “extremely dangerous people,” he said. It didn’t matter how long they had been locked up or whether they had been charged with any crimes. They should give up any hope of release.

Mr. Trump wasn’t just walking away from the efforts of his two predecessors to shrink the population of the prison and, eventually, to close it. He wanted to make it bigger — to “load it up with some bad dudes,” as he said.

Personally, I’m failing to see the problem with stocking the detention center with hardcore jihadis, except for the fact that it would be cheaper and easier just sending the jihadis off to Allah. Which, quite frankly, seemed to be the position of President Obama.

Today, 41 men remain at Guantánamo. Thirteen either have active cases in the military commission system or have been convicted. The rest have been held as enemy combatants, but without charge, for up to 16 years. Five of those have been cleared for transfer, meaning that the Pentagon, the White House and intelligence agencies long ago agreed that they pose no security threat. Many of these men were arrested under questionable circumstances; some were tortured, either at C.I.A. black sites or at Guantánamo itself.

Perhaps the august members of the NYTEB would care to host these jihadis at their mansions, in order to help rehabilitate them?

Last Thursday, 11 of these “forever prisoners” filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court in Washington, D.C. The men, all foreign-born Muslims, say their continued detention violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process and the 2001 law that gave presidents the power to send enemy combatants to Guantánamo.

One of the plaintiffs, prisoner No. 893, a 45-year-old Yemeni named Tolfiq al Bihani, has been held at Guantánamo for nearly 15 years. He was cleared for conditional release in 2010. The Saudi government agreed to accept him in 2016, along with nine other Yemenis. Those nine were all transferred, but Mr. al Bihani remains at Guantánamo without explanation.

Interesting that they aren’t blaming Mr. Obama for that.

President George W. Bush may be guilty of creating the constitutional calamity that is Guantánamo, but at least he made an effort to empty it of men who clearly posed no threat to the United States, releasing 532 detainees by the end of his second term. President Barack Obama, who was blocked by Republicans in Congress from keeping his campaign promise to close the prison,

Obama had two years with a Democratic Congress to get it done, and the only thing he did was sign an Executive Order. He didn’t put in the work to get it done.

established regular reviews of each inmate’s case and worked intensively to negotiate the transfer of those who could not be returned safely to their home countries. In the end, he released 197 detainees.

How many returned to the battle field? Quite a few.

Anyhow, this continues on and on and on, with the NYTEB super worried about hardcore jihadis who would be happy to run riot through the NY Times’ building and slit everyone’s throat. And, somehow, they make this All About Trump. Why? Derangement Syndrome.

Read: NY Times Spins Wheel, Finds Something New To Be Outraged At Trump: Guantanamo Bay »

Good News: Great Whites Will Soon Be Swimming Near The Top Of The Statue Of Liberty

This kind of unhinged, over-the-top silliness certainly doesn’t help make the case that Warmists are pushing Science

Yeah, this a big screed by Excitable Bill McKibben, part hatred of fossil fuels, part hatred of wealthy people and Wall Street. Read it if you like, you’ve since this progressive stupidity again and again.

I’m not going to drop a bunch, but, this is the kind of thing going on in ClimateTwitter World

Read: Good News: Great Whites Will Soon Be Swimming Near The Top Of The Statue Of Liberty »

If All You See…

…is hay used to feed evil moo cows which cause climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on why Christianity is become a hate crime in the West

Read: If All You See… »

Say, How Would A Cap And Trade System Work In Oregon?

The Democrats who run the state government in Oregon are hell bent on passing a carbon tax. Why? Most likely not because they Believe, but, because they want new revenue streams. Voters turned down a corporate tax measure in 2016, and the Leftists have been looking for some other way to hit companies up. So, how would it work

(Spokesman) Oregon lawmakers are considering a major change in how the state will go about reducing its contributions to climate change.

Right now, there’s nothing to stop a lot of Oregon businesses from pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The Clean Energy Jobs Bill introduced last week would launch a cap and trade system that would limit some of those emissions and charge businesses for the right to pollute.

The system would be similar to existing programs in California and some Canadian provinces.

How would Oregon’s cap and trade system work?

The state would set a cap on total greenhouse emissions, and about 100 companies in the state’s largest industries would be required to buy pollution permits to cover their emissions.

The bill requires permits for any business that emits more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. That includes a variety of large manufacturers, paper mills, fuel distributors and utilities.

Over time, the cap on emissions will come down and there will be fewer pollution permits available. So companies will have to reduce their emissions, spend more on permits or buy credits to offset their emissions.

And what will they do with the money?

Creators of the bill call it a “cap and invest” program because the state could make an estimated $700 million a year from selling pollution permits. That money would then be invested in project that expand public transit, solar power, electric vehicles and home energy efficiency upgrades that will help reduce the state’s overall greenhouse gas emissions.

So, how will it work in the real world? Well, the price of energy will go up. The cost of goods will go up. Companies will leave the state. Jobs will leave. Oregon Governor Kate Brown supposedly is requiring that any bill passed has to protect poor people from these price hikes. Well, this hasn’t worked any place it’s been tried, but, hey, they’ll give it another shot. And we’ll watch the resulting fallout.

Read: Say, How Would A Cap And Trade System Work In Oregon? »

CNN: Winston Churchill Would Have Been A ‘Climate Change’ Believer Or Something

CNN gives a platform to Sir Nicholas Soames, a Conservative (different from American conservatives) member of the British Parliament since 1983. Looks like he’s forgotten that the primary political ideology of Classical Conservatives is government staying 100% out of the economy. But, then, people who’ve been in government for that long like government power to keep their jobs. The piece starts out by comparing the government of England and the U.S., and makes the typical mistake of conflating Doing Something about ‘climate change’ with actual environmental issues, till we get to

Dear President Trump: Churchill would have been a climate leader

……

The logic of the Prime Minister’s argument would seem to be inescapable. Whether you appreciate nature by admiring its beauty or by using it for hunting — I happen to like both — nature’s survival is not something on which we can rely. As with a marriage, keeping it alive takes work.

Previous American presidents of the political right appreciated this. Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency. Ronald Reagan ushered in the Marine Mammal Protection Act. George Bush signed a treaty known as the UN climate change convention.

All of these measures were perfectly in tune with the views of conservative philosopher Sir Roger Scruton that “there is no political cause more amenable to the conservative vision than that of the environment, for it touches on the three foundational ideas of our movement: trans-generational loyalty, the priority of the local and the search for home.”

But, the climate change scam is not the environment. Climate changes. Always has, always will. Nixon would certainly have heartburn over the way the EPA has been politically weaponized to control the lives and private property of U.S. citizens.

The key figure in starting all this was another Conservative figure for whom I hope the President would have some regard: Margaret Thatcher. And it has brought no threat to energy security, or to jobs.

Thatcher thought ‘climate change’, or anthropogenic global warming, as it was called back then, was a joke, and understood that this push was a far, far leftist attempt to create more control over citizens, economies, and nations.

My grandfather, Sir Winston Churchill, knew a thing or two about courage. President Trump is, I gather, a fan, having a bust of him in the Oval Office. Without Churchill’s determination, the Nazis would have won the war in Europe. But this is equally true of his respect for evidence. You cannot defeat an enemy of markedly superior forces unless you have better information and make better decisions.

Were he our Prime Minister today, it is pretty clear he would have said the same things on climate change as Theresa May has this week. Because, simply, she is right, and she is acting in the interests of her people.

That’s a nice thought, but, he would most likely have recognized that ‘climate change’ is a fascistic/socialist/progressive push. He would have seen the same type of big government control that he saw across the English Channel emanating from Germany and Italy. And a type rising to the east of Poland.

Read: CNN: Winston Churchill Would Have Been A ‘Climate Change’ Believer Or Something »

Bad Behavior has blocked 3693 access attempts in the last 7 days.