Trump’s Environmental Policy Advisor Pick: Warmism Is “Kinda Paganism”

It warms my heart that so many are treating ‘climate change’ as political/SJW issue it is, rather than thinking it’s a scientific issue

(ABC 10) President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the White House senior adviser for environmental policy in 2016 described the belief in “global warming” as a “kind of paganism” for “secular elites.”

Trump last week nominated Kathleen Hartnett White, who previously led the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, a post that requires Senate confirmation. Hartnett White, currently a senior fellow at the conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation, has long expressed skepticism about established climate science and once dismissed the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, calling it “the gas of life on this planet.” (Snip)

Hartnett White appeared on “The Right Perspective,” an online conservative radio show, in September 2016 when she made the comments talking about a “dark side” to belief in global warming.

“There’s a real dark side of the kind of paganism — the secular elites’ religion now — being evidently global warming,” Hartnett White said.

 photo n7gkinm_zps6tx6m27o.gif

Of course, these elites are much like the elites in many cults, in they demand Everyone Else they must comply, but they themselves do not.

Also, it’s interesting that this article initially came from CNN, who can find this, but nothing on the background of Obama.

Read: Trump’s Environmental Policy Advisor Pick: Warmism Is “Kinda Paganism” »

If All You See…

…is a town being destroyed by carbon pollution extreme weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is the First Street Journal, with a post saying that we don’t want compassion from President Trump, we want good policies.

Read: If All You See… »

Surprise: California General Assembly A Hotbed of Sexual Harassment

Looks like the elected law-making branch, which mostly consists of Democrats, and is run by Democrats, and has been for a long time, has a problem practicing what they preach

Graphic allegations about California legislator show there are few protections for female lobbyists in the Capitol

As a blunt manifesto painting the state Capitol as rife with sexual harassment and misconduct ricocheted through Sacramento this week, state leaders have begun looking into an explosive allegation of a forced sexual encounter and grappling with legislative solutions to the apparently ubiquitous culture of abuse in California politics.

The story shared by one lobbyist, Pamela Lopez, of a legislator masturbating in front of her in a bar bathroom has sparked investigations by the state Senate and Assembly. Lopez refused to disclose the legislator’s identity. There are 93 male lawmakers currently serving in Sacramento.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon has vowed to back resignation or expulsion if the perpetrator is found to be one of his members.

Lopez’s tale underscores a systemic flaw in the state’s protections for women who work in — but are not employees of — the state Capitol. Female lobbyists say they feel there are few avenues to lodge workplace complaints against legislators, staff and lobbyists with different employers. The lack of options has attracted the attention of one state senator, who said she wants to address the problem in legislation next year.

But, um,

She has steadfastly declined to name the lawmaker.

“We’re not interested in taking punitive action,” she said of herself and others speaking out publicly. “We’re interested in a comprehensive look at the masculinized ethos of California politics — how we can all collectively do better in the future.”

This is apparently the “let’s punish everyone for what one person did” approach, which kinda makes one wonder if the GA is really such a hotbed to start with. Dramatic accusations require dramatic proof. And, despite snarking on Democrats, and despite “other lobbyists saying inappropriate touching and suggestive comments are commonplace in the job”, no one is naming names, no one is actually filing complaints. At the end of the day, people, even Democrats, are innocent till proven guilty.

Even the LA Times Editorial Board jumped in

Among those who added their voices and stories are more than 140 female legislators, lobbyists and political staffers in Sacramento who signed a letter this week saying that sexual harassment is pervasive in the state capital. “Each of us has endured, or witnessed or worked with women who have experienced some form of dehumanizing behavior by men with power in our workplaces,” the letter reads. “Men have groped and touched us without our consent, made inappropriate comments about our bodies and our abilities. Insults and sexual innuendo, frequently disguised as jokes, have undermined our professional positions and capabilities. Men have made promises, or threats, about our jobs in exchange for our compliance, or our silence. They have leveraged their power and positions to treat us however they would like.”

Again, the problem here is no one is named. This is just a blanket statement that looks to scapegoat all males.

Read: Surprise: California General Assembly A Hotbed of Sexual Harassment »

ACLU Attempts To Get Law On Sheltering Illegal Aliens Declared Unconsitutional

I’ve mentioned the law, 8 Us Code 1324, many times. It’s about people actually sheltering, harboring, etc, illegal aliens. The ACLU has spun the entire thing into a free speech issue and wants it declared unconstitutional.

Under This Law, Encouraging Undocumented Immigrants to Seek Shelter Could Be a Crime

As wildfires raged across Northern California last week, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) took to Twitter to encourage those in need to seek shelter, even if they didn’t have lawful immigration status.

Senator Harris’s desire to protect all her constituents is admirable. It also may be a crime.

A section of the federal Immigration and Naturalization Act states that any person who “encourages or induces” a non-citizen to “come to, enter, or reside” in this country in violation of the law is guilty of a felony, and may be imprisoned for up to five years. For a person to be found guilty, the prosecution must show that the person knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the non-citizen’s action was unlawful. Harris’s tweet arguably “encouraged” undocumented immigrants to “reside” in the country. That’s precisely the type of speech a zealous federal prosecutor could target for criminal sanction under this law.

The ACLU trots out examples of people speaking, such as

  • A woman who tells her undocumented housekeeper that she should not depart the U.S. or else she won’t be allowed back in. (A former U.S. Customs and Border Protection official stood trial in just such a case.)
  • A university president who publishes an op-ed arguing that DACA recipients should consider her campus to be a “sanctuary” after their deferred action expires.
  • A community organization that announces its shelters and soup kitchens are open to homeless undocumented youth in their area.

The only one that might possibly violate Section 1324, and, specifically, (1)(a)(iv) “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law;” is the second one. Here’s what the ACLU is doing about it

This law clearly oversteps the First Amendment, which does not allow the government to criminalize these kinds of speech. The Supreme Court has stated clearly: “The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it.” That’s why the ACLU yesterday submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing that this law is unconstitutional.

The government can only prohibit “unprotected” speech, like incitement to violence or speech that itself constitutes a crime, like harassment. Speech “encouraging” immigration violations does not qualify. This makes the law we challenged “presumptively unconstitutional,” because it regulates the content of things we can say.

If you entice someone to commit suicide, you can be held responsible for that, as Michelle Carter found out. The ACLU is going specifically after (1)(a)(iv), as the amicus brief shows.

The ACLU filed its brief in a criminal case against Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, an immigration consultant from San Jose, California. Ms. Sineneng-Smith was convicted in 2013 for filing labor applications for clients she knew were not eligible for green cards at the time. Despite the fact that all the information Ms. Sineneng-Smith filed was accurate — including disclosure of the fact that her clients had been in the country illegally for years — she was convicted of “encouraging or inducing” her clients to remain in the U.S. She has appealed her conviction.

Except, that’s not actual free speech. She took action. Unlawful action, which was also fraud. The ACLU is playing games in their attempt to protect people who have voluntarily entered the United States in an unlawful manner. Not surprising in the least.

Read: ACLU Attempts To Get Law On Sheltering Illegal Aliens Declared Unconsitutional »

Even On Fighting Opioids, Media Goes TDS

America apparently has an opioid problem. We’ve heard about this for several years, with each pronouncement more dire. One would think that the President of the United States taking an interest would be a good thing, but, this is the leftist media, so Politico writers Brianna Ehley, Josh Dawsey, and Sarah Karlin-Smith give it the TDS spin

Trump blindsides advisers with promised opioid plan

President Donald Trump overrode his own advisers when he promised to deliver an emergency declaration next week to combat the nation’s worsening opioid crisis.

“That is a very, very big statement,” he said Monday. “It’s a very important step. … We’re going to be doing it in the next week.”

Blindsided officials are now scrambling to develop such a plan, but it is unclear when it will be announced, how or if it will be done, and whether the administration has the permanent leadership to execute it, said two administration officials.

“They are not ready for this,” a public health advocate said of an emergency declaration after talking to Health and Human Services officials enlisted in the effort.

If you’re thinking “are any of this officials named? Is anyone on the record?” Nope and nope

Trump’s off-script statement stunned top agency officials, who said there is no consensus on how to implement an emergency declaration for the drug epidemic, according to interviews with officials from the White House, a half dozen federal agencies, state health directors and lobbyists.

And not one is named.

…said one senior administration official.

Multiple sources in and out of relevant federal agencies….

A senior FDA official…

An HHS spokesman…

A White House spokesman…

Instead of saying “this is a good thing that POTUS is taking an interest and wants to do something,” Politico trots out unnamed, and, for all we know, imaginary, advisors, attempting to slam Trump. And they wonder why the trust level in the media is so low.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Even On Fighting Opioids, Media Goes TDS »

Sore Loser Symphony: LA Times Features Another Impeachment Fantasy

The Moonbats just can’t help themselves. It really is time to see legitimate psychological help, as the LA Times allows another nutter, Barbara Radnofsky to delve into her insane sore loser fantasy

The Founding Fathers provided us with a way out of troubled presidency — the direct, doable process of impeachment

Many people see chaos in the Trump administration and fear for the nation’s future. The president was duly elected, and yet this presidency has already been marked by lawsuits, an FBI investigation, policy confusion and escalating rhetoric with North Korea. Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution offers a direct, doable way to respond to such crises: impeachment.

The Founding Fathers, after all, won a revolution against a tyrannical chief executive — “Mad” King George III of England. They were fearful of a similar kind of leader taking charge in the new United States. They embedded in the Constitution an orderly process run by Congress, not the courts, to remove civil officers — the president, the vice president, federal judges, Cabinet members and others — who cause substantial harm to society. The idea, said Edmund Randolph, a leader of the Virginia delegation to the Constitutional Convention, was to circumvent “irregularly inflicted … tumults and insurrections.”

Funny, I do not remember Democrats complaining about Obama’s ruling by executive fiat.

Impeachment is an entirely political process; it isn’t a function of criminal or civil law. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, impeachable offenses are “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men or … from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may . . . be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

Of course, that’s not what the actual Constitution says about what is terms for impeachment, but, hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of some good nutbaggery. Which is too much to excerpt, because they I’d just be posting the entire article. Regardless, it is interesting that Ms. Radnofsky actually lays out a case as to why President Obama should have been impeached.

These are all just deranged fantasies from sore losers who nominated a horrible candidate, one who passed out in view of the public on 9/11, failed visit several key states, was non-personable, and had a lot of baggage.

Read: Sore Loser Symphony: LA Times Features Another Impeachment Fantasy »

If All You See…

…is fossil fueled machine that is doubly evil because it uses wood, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pacific Pundit, with a post on Monica Lewinsky tweeting #MeToo.

Read: If All You See… »

Hollywood Looks To Reduce Profit With More ‘Climate Change’ Movies

Rather than just making good movies, Hollywood has been going the SJW route for a while now, but, this really ramped up during the Bush years. And most of those movies tanked. What are they trying now?

From the idiot article, which makes normal weather into a supervillain or something

In 2004, when climate change was still called global warming, it was considered sensational enough to get top billing in The Day After Tomorrow, a city-smashing blockbuster by disaster master Roland Emmerich. But the incremental death march of the real thing was considered a little too slow for Independence Day’s king of kablooey. So impatient was he to bring forth a biblical flood and subsequent ice age that was epic enough to swallow the Statue of Liberty, Emmerich conspired to make his cataclysm happen in days, not decades, courtesy of a cosmically unlucky (and scientifically unlikely) flash freeze.

In 2017, the desire to accelerate climate change – even in the name of brash, mass-market pop art – is quaint yet horrifying. The nagging feeling that humankind may already have zoomed past some sort of ecological tipping point thanks to our voracious appetites for cheap energy and consumer goods seems increasingly undeniable. Previously, we looked to the multiplex to vicariously experience the catastrophic aftermath of freak super-storms and monster tsunamis; now we see these images appear with increasing and distressing regularity in the news.

Perhaps that is why climate change is a common theme across a broad range of movies this year, either as an obvious baddie or a subtextual spectre. The forthcoming eco-thriller Geostorm optimistically suggests that we could circumvent the cataclysmic heavy weather caused by climate change if only we tasked someone like scientist-astronaut Gerard Butler to invent a network of weather-controlling satellites. But when that system malfunctions, the planet reaps the whirlwind (not to mention mega-storms and tidal waves). Director Dean Devlin, who produced Independence Day with Emmerich, seems keen to outdo his old partner in terms of on-screen mass obliteration, with cities such as Dubai, Tokyo and Moscow in his apocalyptic sights. Whether global audiences will be excited by such destruction after recent natural disasters in MexicoSierra LeonePuerto Rico and the Caribbean, remains to be seen.

Many recent movies are mentioned, such as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Sequel (bombed, and a follow up to a movie that was dodgy scientifically), Interstellar and Logan (they try and link AGW to them), Mad Max: Fury Road (did well, because they didn’t make it about AGW. The original was more about war), Blade Runner 2049 (it bombed), Mother! (which utterly bombed, and drove Jennifer Lawrence to pronounce she’s taking a break), and, of course, Geostorm, which is expected to bomb.

In the forthcoming Downsizing, Oscar-winning writer-director Alexander Payne imagines a near future where eco-conscious Norwegians have developed a sci-fi shrink-ray that can zap people, such as stressed everyman Matt Damon, down to just five inches in height. Everything about this growing community of nu-Lilliputians is smaller – particularly their carbon footprint. In the film, the procedure is marketed as a quasi-altruistic lifestyle choice that doubles as a lottery win, suggesting participants will improve the planet’s sustainability as well as artificially extending their savings.

And Hollywood wonders why fewer people are going to the movies. First, the material is not that good. Second, people do not want to be preached to. They want to be entertained.

Read: Hollywood Looks To Reduce Profit With More ‘Climate Change’ Movies »

California Looks To Make Cremations Climate Friendly Or Something

Now, there is nothing wrong with allowing cremation using other methods, ones which have been restricted for really no good reason. There is also nothing wrong with using a method that is actually better for the environment, versus the use of lots of chemicals, such as embalming fluid, and the non-biodegradable chipboard in coffins. But, of course, California is doing this because of ‘climate change’ (you can read a bit more in depth on the process here)

(Fox News) California Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed into law a controversial bill that will allow the state’s residents to select a water cremation, or alkaline hydrolysis, for their end-of-life remains.

The move is considered part of efforts to “green-ify” death, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. The theory goes that — unlike with a standard cremation — the funeral home is not putting carbon emission into the sky.

“Burning Grandma in fire seems to be violent,” Phil Olson, a philosophy professor at Virginia Tech, told the Atlantic, “In contrast, green cremation is ‘putting Grandma in a warm bath.'”

The Chronicle, citing a 2016 report from the National Funeral Directors Association, reported that more people selected cremation rather than burial in 2015. The head of a company that specializes in water cremation told the paper that the amount of energy used in one “flame” cremation could heat a Minnesota home for an entire winter.

“Granted, you’re using water. However, you’re not using fossil fuel and you’re not putting a carbon emission into the sky,” Matt Baskerville, a funeral director in Illinois who uses alkaline hydrolysis, told the paper. “It’s definitely a cleaner and greener option than the traditional flame cremation.”

The water is cleaned and reused. It isn’t getting polluted. A lot less energy is used. Unlike with cremation, some metal body parts do not need to be removed. They can simply be taken out of the bath at the end for reuse (after melting down, of course).

The danger is that funeral homes do not dispose of the leftover liquid properly, because it is entirely too alkaline. But, regardless, water cremation is being pushed because of the anthropogenic climate change scam. They’d have a lot more luck if they simply said it was less expensive and better for the environment.

Read: California Looks To Make Cremations Climate Friendly Or Something »

ICE Plans Significant Targeting Of Businesses That Knowingly Hire Illegal Aliens

If you look back in my archives, I’ve often written that I am not a big fan of a full length border wall: I’m a fan of doing things that dissincent people from coming to the U.S. illegally/overstaying their visas. One of those things is a crackdown on those who employ illegals. And it looks like ICE may well be about to do this

(Tucson Sentinel) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to boost its efforts targeting businesses by “four to five times” and will prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegal workers, the acting director of the agency said Tuesday.

Thomas Homan said the goal of the new policy is to cut off the supply of jobs that will keep people coming here illegally “as long as they come and get a job.” (snip)

Homan’s comments came during a speech Tuesday at the Heritage Foundation, where he criticized sanctuary cities and defended ICE’s practices of deporting immigrants who are suspected gang members, and arresting them near schools, hospitals, courthouses and other areas that have been off-limits in the past.

Homan stressed that except for immigrants who currently enjoy DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, protection, “nobody is off the table.” He said he hopes to send a message to those breaking the law that “we’re no longer going to turn our heads, we’re going to enforce the laws on the books.”

It’s a good start. Next up, the penalties for those who knowingly hire illegals/do not do their due diligence in hiring should be dramatically increased. Make it so painful, with civil and criminal penalties, that no one will take the chance of hiring an illegal.

Now, this article jumps into the notion of the use of E-verify, which is required in Arizona, but is not required everywhere else in the nation. President Trump and Director Homan would like to change that. The US Chamber of Commerce is rather leery of that (I wonder why?), and we have this from the illegal alien supporters

But immigration advocates said authorities should think twice before making E-Verify mandatory nationwide.

Immigrants are needed to fill manual labor jobs that Americans may not be willing to take, said Petra Falcon, executive director of the Latino voter outreach organization Promise Arizona. Rather than deporting them outright, Falcon said the government should work with employers to find a solution to keep them here.

“We need to solve that problem,” Falcon said. “We know that they’re here, we’re inviting them to come and work in the fields, in construction, in this economy and yet they’re not invited to receive the benefits of doing that in this country.”

Who’s this “we”? We give work permits to many migrant workers to come and work and then leave at the end of the permit. Sadly, many are inventivizing people to come illegally, and those companies need to pay a big price for enabling this lawless activity.

Falcon said she is disappointed but not surprised by the agency’s decision to ramp up workplace enforcement and said it is in step with the Trump administration’s rhetoric of “targeting the most vulnerable in our communities.”

Targeting people who are in violation of federal law? How rude!

Meanwhile, there are all sorts of sob stories out there of illegals being deported. Like this mom, who has kids!!!!! Oh, and committed felony perjury when she lied on a driver’s license application. Her husband did the same, and was deported under Obama. And this Raleigh boxer, a DACA recipient. Who, whoops!, forgot to renew his DACA status. And many others. Do you know what is the common denominator? They committed actions that caused their own deportation orders. It’s their own fault, beyond also being in the U.S. illegally.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: ICE Plans Significant Targeting Of Businesses That Knowingly Hire Illegal Aliens »

Bad Behavior has blocked 3641 access attempts in the last 7 days.