If All You See…

…is a low carbon boat we’ll all use to get to work when the seas cover all the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Political Hat, with a post on the UK cracking down on illegal (spins wheel) baking.

Read: If All You See… »

Democrat Run California Senate Passes Resolution Telling Christians To Embrace LGBT

What part of the 1st Amendment is not understood by California Democrats? Or of the California Constitution (Article 1 section 4) (via The Right Scoop)

(CBN NEWS) – California Senate passed a resolution telling Christian clergy to accept and support LGBTQ ideology, even if doing so violates their Christian beliefs.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99 (ACR-99) was introduced by Democratic state Assemblyman Evan Low of San Jose on June 4 as a way to gather support for LGBTQ identity and behaviors.

The resolution also condemns counseling for unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion, known as conversion therapy.

The resolution also seeks to reduce the stigma that society, therapists, and religious groups allegedly inflict upon those within the LGBTQ community.

ACR-99 proclaims that stigmatizing has caused “disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals. The State of California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, including LGBTQ youth.”

The Right Scoop notes

The last paragraph about suicides left something out. The resolution actually blames Christians, in part, for the high rates of suicide among LGBTers:

The stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals;

That’s right from the text of the resolution. And this, along with their ban of so-called ‘conversion therapy’ and their call for Christians to accept homosexuality borders on the fascistic.

What’s next when Christians don’t accept homosexuality? Are they going to regulate what can and can’t be said in our churches? They’ve already tried to regulate what happens in the confessional of the Catholic church.

Now, reading the text of the resolution, it doesn’t actually name any specific religion, but it does allude to Christians, because Muslims do not tolerate gays. In many areas around the world they just kill them. The Pulse Night Club was targeted because the people who go there were LGBT. The resolution does specifically mention “pastors”, which is a Christian thing. Also

Resolved, That the Legislature calls upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy; and be it further

That seems rather like the California Democratic Party run Senate is telling religious leaders what to do.

Read: Democrat Run California Senate Passes Resolution Telling Christians To Embrace LGBT »

Not A Cult: Warmist Sarah Silverman Refers To Greta Thunberg As Jesus

OK, OK, she’s just one Warmist (who uses massive amounts of energy and fossil fuels to travel around and do her applause instead of laughing comedy shows), but, plenty of other Warmists are agreeing with her in the tweet

(Breitbart) Actress-Comedian Sarah Silverman said she sees Jesus Christ in 16-year-old Swedish climate change alarmist Greta Thunberg.

“You think you will recognize Jesus when he comes back? I see him all around. He is this girl. And y’all don’t even see it.” Sarah Silverman said on Twitter, linking to an article of Thunberg appearing on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.

“We actually know that these consequences will face us during our lifetime, and it is already happening now. And it will get worse. And, uh, so I think that is why so many young people, especially, care about this,” Thunberg told Noah. “And, uh, and, of course, the awareness is not as it needs to be, it’s not as much as it needs to be. People are still very unaware, it’s my experience. And, uh, so we need to continue, but you can see that among young people the concern is bigger.”

See, she’s totally like Jesus! And other celebs, like Chris Evans and Rainn Wilson, were squeeing over her. Interestingly, no one in the media is doing that weird thing they used to be known for and ask her tough questions about her beliefs and the science. Did any ask Greta how she traveled around NYC and where she stayed? And who was paying for it? And how she traveled from NYC to D.C. to attend the protest in front of the White House? There’s not one picture of her arriving at the White House for the protest, because you know that this “modern day Jesus” was shuttled in a large fossil fueled vehicle.

Silverman is a self proclaimed secular Jew who claims to have no religion. But as a leftist, we know she blindly worship extreme environmentalism, abortion, and radical feminism. And would freak over any Christianity in public view. It’s a climate cult.

Read: Not A Cult: Warmist Sarah Silverman Refers To Greta Thunberg As Jesus »

Trump Calls “Dummy Beto” Out For Making It Harder To Make A Deal On Gun Safety

Trump should have actually thanked Beto for exposing what the Democratic gun grabber agenda actually is

(The Hill) President Trump is blaming Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke for making it “much harder” for him to reach a bipartisan deal with Democrats on gun control legislation in the wake of a string of mass shootings.

Trump tweeted early Wednesday that the former Texas congressman, whom he labeled “dummy Beto,” had “convinced many” that Democrats want to take people’s guns away. The tweet came after O’Rourke, whose home state witnessed recent shootings in El Paso and Odessa, proposed a mandatory buyback for assault weapons.

“Dummy Beto made it much harder to make a deal. Convinced many that Dems just want to take your guns away,” Trump tweeted Wednesday, adding, however, “Will continue forward!”

They do want to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Remember, the initial talking point was that they would reinstate the 1994 assault weapons ban, which did not take guns away, just stop new sales. Now, here’s Beto saying he will take them away from citizens who now own them, a position several other contenders have alluded to, and one which the hardcore liberal base wants implemented. Heck, go back to the late 1990’s and you had Trump backing the assault weapons ban. Even if he still believes in it, he’s not going to say it and he knows it’s it bad idea to try and take them.

Trump has been engaging with lawmakers on potential gun legislation in the wake of the shootings, but hopes have dimmed on the prospect of a bipartisan deal that would expand background checks.

In the wake of August shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, Trump signaled support for expanding background checks and expressed optimism that Republicans would get on board.

But since, he has appeared to waffle on his stance, casting gun violence as primarily a health issue and warning of the “slippery slope” – a popular talking point of the National Rifle Association – of enacting gun control measures. He has also said that the United States already has strong background checks, and that he wants to focus on filling the gaps.

Trump told reporters at the White House last Thursday that he thought he would support strengthening background checks, but quickly sought to shift the burden to Democrats on any agreements, saying he wouldn’t agree to anything if it were “a ploy to take your guns away.”

They do. They say it. They write it. They allude to it. When you hear them talking about the British and Australian solutions, well, that was about banning most weapons. When they are cheering on the bannings in New Zealand, you know what they want. When they make a gaffe and, instead of saying they want to ban “assault weapons” they say they want to ban all semi-automatic weapons, they mean it. Nor do they ever offer legislation that hammers those who illegally use/possess firearms, and want to go easier on criminals.

We know what they want.

Read: Trump Calls “Dummy Beto” Out For Making It Harder To Make A Deal On Gun Safety »

NY Times Is Hot To Pack The Supreme Court

Hardcore Leftist Jamelle Bouie is super excited about this, but, only if a Democrat wins the White House

To Balance the Scales of Justice, Don’t Be Afraid to Pack the Court

President Trump bragged on Twitter recently about his success filling up the federal judiciary. “I want to congratulate” Senate majority leader “Mitch McConnell and all Republicans,” Trump wrote: “Today I signed the 160th Federal Judge to the Bench. Within a short period of time we will be at over 200 Federal Judges, including many in the Appellate Courts & two great new U.S. Supreme Court Justices!”

This is just a slight exaggeration. After 32 months in office, Trump has made 209 nominations to the federal judiciary, with 152 judges confirmed by the Senate, including two Supreme Court justices. That’s nearly half the total confirmed during President Barack Obama’s eight years in office.

(lots of whining)

Democrats are left in an unenviable position. Should they win a federal “trifecta” — the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives — they’ll still have to deal with a Trump-branded judiciary. It’s entirely possible that a future Democratic agenda would be circumscribed and unraveled by a Supreme Court whose slim conservative majority owes itself to minority government and constitutional hardball.

So what should Democrats do? They should play hardball back. Congress, according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, decides the number of judges. It’s been 150 years since it changed the size of the Supreme Court. I think it’s time to revisit the issue. Should Democrats win that trifecta, they should expand and yes, pack, the Supreme Court. Add two additional seats to account for the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations. Likewise, expand and pack the entire federal judiciary to neutralize Trump and McConnell’s attempt to cement Republican ideological preferences into the constitutional order.

Modern (whiny-assed) Socialists like Bouie should be careful what they wish for, lest Trump packs the Court himself.

The reasoning underpinning this proposal isn’t just about the future; it’s about the past. We have had two rounds of minority government in under two decades — two occasions where executive power went to the popular-vote loser. Rather than moderate their aims and ambitions, both presidents have empowered ideologues and aggressively spread their influence. We are due for a course correction.

Told you he was whiny-assed. And utterly illiterate about our Constitutional Republic. But, ready for a really hot take?

The goal isn’t to make the courts a vehicle for progressive policy, (yes it is) but to make sure elected majorities can govern — to keep the United States a democratic republic and not a judge-ocracy. Yes, there are genuine constitutional disputes, questions about individual rights and the scope of federal power. At the same time, there are broad readings of the Constitution — ones that give our elected officials the necessary power to act and to solve problems — and narrow readings, which handcuff and restrict the range of our government.

Do I need to mention that our system is set up to protect the minority from the mob rule of the majority? And that these rules are baked into our founding documents? Jamelle also seems unhappy that those rules restrain Governmental power.

Read: NY Times Is Hot To Pack The Supreme Court »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful low carbon sailboat saving us from carbon pollution caused brightness, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on a Christian wedding invitation company winning in court against the usual haters.

Read: If All You See… »

LA Times: 2020 Could Be Our Last Change To Stop The Climate Apocalypse

I highlighted one of the unhinged pieces by the LA Times editorial board on climate change yesterday. Here’s the other

Editorial: Climate change is already here. 2020 could be your last chance to stop an apocalypse

The world is drifting steadily toward a climate catastrophe. For many of us, that’s been clear for a few years or maybe a decade or even a few decades.

But others have known that a reckoning was coming for much longer. A Swedish scientist first calculated in 1896 that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could lead to warmer global temperatures. By the 1930s, scientists were measuring the increase, and in the late 1960s, they had documented the impact of melting ice in Antarctica. By 1977, Exxon-Mobil had recognized its own role in the warming of the ocean, the polar ice melt and the rising sea level.

What caused the previous Holocene warm periods, some of which were much warmer than today? Why is sea rise exactly average, when it should be much higher during a warm period? Why have there been numerous pauses, and even a slight cooling period, during this Modern Warm Period? Why are most areas of Antarctica not warming? Really, nothing else they offer further in the article proves anthropogenic causation, just that there has been slight warming since 1850.

Anyhow, it’s a good thing that this is all about science, not politics

For three years, Americans have been living under the willfully blind, anti-scientific, business-coddling rule of President Trump, who has stubbornly chosen climate denial over rationality. We now have an opportunity to resoundingly reject his policies by voting him out of office, along with congressional Republicans who enable him. There are plenty of reasons to fight for Trump’s defeat in November 2020, but his deeply irresponsible climate policies — including moving to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, roll back Barack Obama’s emission limits on coal-fired plants, rescind rules governing methane emissions and relax national fuel emission standards — are among the strongest.

Nope, no politics.

All that burning of carbon fuels needs to end; yet unless policies and politics change dramatically, it won’t end. Even in this time of heightened clarity, two-thirds of new passenger vehicles bought in the U.S. last year were gas-guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs. Those SUVs will be on the road an average of eight years, and the pickups for more than 13 years, as the time to address the climate problem slips away. Blame for this falls not just on consumers, but also on the manufacturers and the government, which has done too little to disincentivize the driving of gas-powered cars.

See, in Warmist World, it’s the government’s job to tell you how to live your life.

Fighting the rise in temperature and sea levels will be tough. Our democracy doesn’t encourage politicians to take bold stances; our economic system doesn’t encourage companies to sacrifice profits for the common good. And we humans are understandably disinclined to live differently or to make sacrifices. But we must stop dawdling and forge ahead if we are to protect ourselves and our planet.

Damned democracy!

Read: LA Times: 2020 Could Be Our Last Change To Stop The Climate Apocalypse »

Only A Green Deal Can Douse The Flames Of Eco-Fascism Or Something

This article by anti-capitalist and big time climate cultist Naomi Klein is so loony it’s almost impossible to give you the idea how nutty it is in a post

Just look at the text in The Intercept tweet. From the screed, in which she attempts to say that eco-fascism is a right leaning thing

But this week’s strike will be different. This time, young organizers have called on adults from all walks of life to join them in the streets. So in addition to schools in over 150 countries, almost 1,000 workers at Amazon’s headquarters in Seattle have pledged to walk out, as have some faculty unions, Britain’s Trades Union Congress, and many others. There is a plan to shut down Washington, D.C. on September 23.

This diversity of the groups involved may well prove to be a new stage in the climate movement, with many more movements and constituencies seeing themselves in the struggle against climate breakdown — as well as in the emerging vision for an intersectional justice-based Green New Deal.

And it’s a good thing too, because as Donald Trump spews racist hate at Bahamian refugees fleeing the wreckage of Hurricane Dorian and growing numbers of far-right killers cite environmental damage as a justification for their rampages, there is a pressing need to confront the ways in which the fires of climate breakdown are already intersecting with the fires of white supremacy and surging xenophobia globally.

These are themes I explore in-depth in my new book, “On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal,” from which this essay is excerpted.

Go that all? Yeah, I know, it’s hard to take in this amount on insanity all at once. She actually says that the Christchurch killer was a far right person, which technically, he was, but way, way far left, into Authoritarianism, the same place the Cult of Climastrology resides

When intense events happen in close proximity to one another, the human mind often tries to draw connections that are not there, a phenomenon known as apophenia. But in this case, there were connections. In fact, the strike and the massacre can be understood as mirror opposite reactions to some of the same historical forces. And this relates to the other way that the Christchurch killer is distinct from the white supremacist mass murderers from whom he openly drew inspiration. Unlike them, he identifies explicitly as an “ethno-nationalist eco-fascist.” In his rambling manifesto, he framed his actions as a twisted kind of environmentalism, railing against population growth and asserting that “Continued immigration into Europe is environmental warfare.”

Interestingly, these “eco” themes are propagated by many, many Warmists. Naomi forgot to mention that.

To be clear, the killer was not driven by environmental concern — his motivation was unadulterated racist hate — but ecological breakdown was one of the forces that seemed to be stoking that hatred, much as we are seeing it act as an accelerant for hatred and violence in armed conflicts around the world. My fear is that, unless something significant changes in how our societies rise to the ecological crisis, we are going to see this kind of white power eco-fascism emerge with much greater frequency, as a ferocious rationalization for refusing to live up to our collective climate responsibilities.

This line of “thought” by Klein doesn’t get any better or less insane, but, hey, we can fix this by passing the Green New Deal, which would control your life, tell you what you can buy, who you can interact with, where you can live, how big your home can be, what you can drive, where you can go, what foods you can eat, and what you’re allowed to think, while also controlling the energy sector and the economy, and you can only vote for certain Approved people, which is rather known as…….Fascism! Amazing, eh? Seriously, we’ll have to change everything about our lives, as Klein writes in a different piece

Pulling off this high-speed pollution phaseout, the report establishes, is not possible with singular technocratic approaches like carbon taxes, though those tools must play a part. Rather, it requires deliberately and immediately changing how our societies produce energy, how we grow our food, how we move around, and how our buildings are constructed. What is needed, the report’s summary states in its first sentence, is “rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

As powerful a motivator as the IPCC report is, perhaps even more important are the calls from many different quarters in the United States and around the world for governments to respond to the climate crisis with a sweeping Green New Deal. The idea is a simple one: in the process of transforming the infrastructure of our societies at the speed and scale that scientists have called for, humanity has a once-in-a-century chance to fix an economic model that is failing the majority of people on multiple fronts. In tackling the climate crisis, we can create hundreds of millions of good jobs around the world, invest in the most systematically excluded communities and nations, guarantee health care and child care, and much more: a Green New Deal could instill a sense of collective, higher purpose—a set of concrete goals that we are all working toward together. 

Again, this is a very, very long piece by Klein, who likes to spread out her points, rather than really providing one central assertion (which could scare off people from her anti-capitalist, pro-Authoritarian views)

“Who is society?” demanded then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1987 to justify her relentless attacks on social services. “There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families.” That bleak view of humanity—that we are nothing more than a collection of atomized individuals and nuclear families, unable to do anything of value together except wage war—has had a stranglehold over the public imagination for a long time. No wonder so many of us believed we could never rise to the climate challenge. 

In other words, you’re all the same and should be controlled by government. Also, it’s rather funny that these articles by Klein are all about selling her book via capitalism.

Read: Only A Green Deal Can Douse The Flames Of Eco-Fascism Or Something »

Criminal Who Shot Houston Cop Was Previously Released For Gun Offense Without Bail

See, this is what Democrats want. If you’re a lawful firearms owner, they want to take away your guns. If you’re a criminal, especially a minority criminal, they want you released with no bond after committing multiple violent felonies

Teen Who Shot Houston Cop Was Released Without Paying Bail After Carjacking

The gunman who shot a Houston police officer multiple times during a violent crime spree on Sept. 12 had been released from jail on his own recognizance just days before the attack.

Brandon Bell, 17, and two other teens were arrested for allegedly carjacking a woman at gunpoint at she was passing out campaign fliers on Sept. 2, KPRC reported.

“‘Get out of the car,” he said, according to victim Tina Kingshill. “I got this gun and I will shoot you.”

Bell also allegedly pointed the gun at another volunteer who was with Kingshill at the time.

Those are all felonies, right?

The Harris County District Attorney’s Office subsequently charged Bell with a misdemeanor count of criminal trespass to a motor vehicle, and he was released on a no-cost, “personal bond,” according to KPRC.

According to the Houston Police Union, Bell failed to show up at court on Sept. 10, but he was not penalized and his bail was never revoked, KPRC reported.

Two days later, he and three accomplices embarked on a violent crime spree beginning at a Valero gas station on Griggs Road, according to KTRK.

And crime spree it was, ending with the shooting of a police officer. After jacking a few cars, attempting to murder a priest, and much more (worth reading). The Harris County District Attorney’s office is run by DA Kim Ogg, unsurprisingly a Democrat, who’s major theme for election was “bail reform.” Her office has seen almost 150 members leave, forcibly and not forcibly, most of whom aren’t taking the line that this has something to do with post-Hurricane Harvey, but the policies Ogg put in place which are soft on crime.

And this is exactly what Democrats nationally want. You have the Democrat contenders, especially Kamala Harris, yammering about doing away with bail. They’re all excited about taking away guns from the law abiding, but, say nothing about cracking down on criminals that use them and shouldn’t lawfully have them in the first place.

Read: Criminal Who Shot Houston Cop Was Previously Released For Gun Offense Without Bail »

We Have To Deal With Over-Consumption And Give Up Our Modern Lives To Stop ‘Climate Change’

See, Warmists think it’s totally crazy that Skeptics will say that the Cult of Climastrology is trying to drag us back to 1499. Silly Skeptics

Opinion: We must confront the real climate foe: Overconsumption

In August, Bernie Sanders released the most ambitious green new deal yet, a proposed $16.3 trillion investment in clean energy, sustainable agriculture, global climate justice and green-collar jobs.

Just weeks later, Elizabeth Warren released her own climate plan, which would focus several trillion dollars on research, green manufacturing and clean energy.

Unsurprisingly, the two leading progressives in the Democratic presidential field have embraced bold action on climate change. Along with the original Green New Deal, Warren and Sanders’ plans represent the most appropriately ambitious American proposals to date.

And yet, they still miss the mark.

Missing the mark, eh?

The underlying assumption of these proposals is that we can stave off climate change while maintaining our modern way of life. The green economy envisioned by Sanders and Warren relies on exchanging dirty modes of production for cleaner ones. Rather than driving gas-powered cars, we’ll drive electric cars. Rather than heating our homes with dirty power plants, we’ll plug into the solar grid.

But we’ll still enjoy our modern comforts. We’ll maintain our place in the complex web of global trade, which relies on polluting ships, trucks and planes to connect us with our products. We’ll maintain our suburban, siloed residential living patterns which require us to drive to work, to school, to the grocery store and to the pharmacy.

Because massive governmental control of everything isn’t good enough

We must return to traditional urban development patterns which lead to compact, walkable cities and easy access to necessary services like grocery stores and schools. Instead of highways, our communities must be connected with public high-speed rail. Isolated communities must be relatively self-sufficient. We must scale back our energy demand and power our homes through decentralized renewables like solar. We must grow our food locally, as we have for most of human history. And we must undertake a titanic cultural shift towards low-consumption local living.

Funny how the same Warmists won’t do this themselves

Without this vision, we will maintain the status quo of overconsumption and environmental degradation until civilization devolves into a Mad Max-esque dystopia. There is no solution but that which fundamentally reorganizes our society around low-consumption living.

Read: We Have To Deal With Over-Consumption And Give Up Our Modern Lives To Stop ‘Climate Change’ »

Bad Behavior has blocked 5243 access attempts in the last 7 days.