If All You See…

…are rough waves caused by extreme weather from Other People not buying sustainable fruit, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on a responsible lifestyle now being raaaaacist.

Read: If All You See… »

Good News: ABC Developing “Comedy” About Illegal Aliens

As if we don’t get enough social justice warrioring from the entertainment industry, now they’re going to give it a shot with illegal aliens

(Deadline) With the topic of immigration firmly in the headlines, most recently over President Donald Trump’s decision yesterday to end the DACA program, it has become a very popular subject for TV series projects this season.

Written by David Feeney (New Girl, 2 Broke Girls) and to be directed by Christine Gernon (Speechless, New Girl), the comedy revolves around a hard-bitten husband and empathetic wife who butt heads over the chaos created when they provide sanctuary for their undocumented nanny and her family — and come to learn, if their marriage survives, that the differences both families have aren’t as significant as their similarities. Feeney and Gernon executive produce for 20th Century Fox TV.

Well, yes, we are rather similar. All families and individuals have problems. The big difference here is that the illegal aliens knowingly chose to enter the US in contradiction to our laws and further violate those laws by staying.

The David Feeney comedy joins several other recently set-up projects that tackle the subject of immigrants, including the undocumented.

Gina Rodriguez is producing two such projects at the CW and CBS. They are Illegal, a dramedy about the family of a teenager who was brought to the U.S. as an undocumented immigrant when he was a child, and Have Mercy, which centers on a Latina doctor who’s unable to practice when she immigrates to Miami.

CBS also has another show in the works,  and Fox reportedly has two. Essentially trying to mainstream law breakers.

And then they wonder why so many are cutting the cord. There are exactly two network shows I watch: Hell’s Kitchen and Masterchef. The last regular show was Under The Dome, and gave up on that turd after suffering through the last half of the 1st season. Boy, that was horrible.

Read: Good News: ABC Developing “Comedy” About Illegal Aliens »

San Francisco, Oakland File Lawsuits Against Oil Companies Over ‘Climate Change’

They add to the list of California municipalities and counties that are suing, all of which should immediately give up their own use of fossil fuels in things like government owned police cars, fire trucks, other emergency vehicles, buses, work vehicles, etc. And the fossil fuels companies should threaten to pull all their stations out of the areas

(The Hill) San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., are suing five major oil companies, blaming them for the effects of climate change.

The cities announced Wednesday they each filed a lawsuit in their respective county courts against Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., ExxonMobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell and BP.

The lawsuits by two of California’s largest cities add to an emerging legal strategy to try to hold individual fossil fuel companies responsible for rising sea levels, extreme weather and other effects of human-induced climate change.

They trot out the same old stale talking points, but what they’ll have a hard time doing, provided the suits aren’t dismissed out of hand, is proving harm. Courts won’t accept the notion that there could maybe might possibly we think that Hotcoldwetdry will cause harm in the nebulous future, but, of course, the courts out on the West coast are full of nutty leftists, so, hey, you never know. The San Fran sea rise station shows no acceleration, and only 1.94mm per year increase, which equates to .64 feet over 100 years, exactly average for the Holocene. The station at Alemeda shows only .24 feet per hundred years.

Extreme weather? Good luck making that case. Other effects? Will they blame the lawlessness, violence, crime, and poverty on the fossil fuels companies? Good luck with that, because the companies certainly have lawyers on staff who are much better educated and much smarter.

Chevron said it welcomes opportunities to fight climate change, but the cities’ lawsuits are not constructive.

“Chevron welcomes serious attempts to address the issue of climate change, but these suits do not do that,” the company said in a statement.

“Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue that requires global engagement and action. Should this litigation proceed, it will only serve special interests at the expense of broader policy, regulatory and economic priorities.”

They were nice about it.

“The claims in these lawsuits are without merit,” said Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri. “We will vigorously defend ourselves against them.”

Of course, the suits will probably be withdrawn, because they cost money, and these cities are just trying to make a point and/or shakedown the oil companies.

Read: San Francisco, Oakland File Lawsuits Against Oil Companies Over ‘Climate Change’ »

NY Times Op-Ed: Government Shouldn’t Give Big Tax Breaks To Attract Companies

The NY Times has give former Delaware governor Jack Markell (Democrat), who served from 2009-2017, a platform to bash government giveaways to corporations, which is very interesting, considering what the NY Times itself received for their building

Let’s Stop Government Giveaways to Corporations

Amazon recently sent state and city officials across the country scrambling to respond to its announcement that it was seekingenticements to build a second headquarters, promising 50,000 new jobs and $5 billion in investment to the winning location. Governments are mobilizing to devise lucrative incentive packages. I know how this works, because I spent eight years supporting these types of incentives as the governor of Delaware.

Amazon’s public encouragement of a bidding war highlights a competition that state and local governments engage in every day. I became very familiar with this process: A big business promises thousands, hundreds or even dozens of jobs and waits for offers from mayors and governors eager to demonstrate to voters that they are bringing them jobs. In Delaware, our economic development office, with my full approval, was busy calculating direct subsidies to corporations through grants and tax breaks.

I was as guilty as any elected official at playing this game. But it’s a game that should stop. There’s a better way to compete for business.

Mr. Markell then spends a bit of time discussing the types of tax breaks, incentives, fee reductions, etc, that Amazon is asking for, and states are offering, and how this is pretty darned normal as states compete for businesses. He “doesn’t blame Amazon” and “doesn’t blame public officials” for playing this game, but, he just doesn’t like it, darn it all! It Offends him.

The result is a market failure in which neither side is motivated to fix the problem. State and local policy makers can’t unilaterally opt out without potentially negative consequences for their constituents, while businesses have a fiduciary obligation to pursue these short-term direct incentives. Competition for jobs should not be seen to hinge on which government can write the biggest check to an employer but on the kinds of things that officials in Delaware and other states spend so much time on to make their communities places worth living in: the quality of schools, work force development programs, the transportation grid and other infrastructure, and the overall quality of life.

I bet when Mr. Markell goes to buy a vehicle he demands they give it to him for their “lowest price”, then demands more. Car sales people would certainly prefer to see the vehicles at sticker, so they can make money, rather than cutting their prices to compete with the other dealers who are trying to undercut them. Same in tons of sales industries. If you can go to one supermarket and get your favorite tea mix for $4.85, and another for $3.85, where are you going?

What does Markell want?

The solution is straightforward: Congress should institute a federal tax of 100 percent on every dollar a business receives in state or local incentives that are directed specifically to that company. This would not include investments in public infrastructure, work force development or other investments that can attract employers while also providing a significant long-term benefit to taxpayers.

This tax would, however, end payouts that go directly to a company’s bottom line and would eliminate the pressure these companies are under to pursue such enticements. I’m talking about incentives like direct grants to a company in exchange for the creation of a specific number of jobs (something we did in Delaware while I was governor) or free or reduced land or the passage of a tax policy tailored specifically to one company.

Good luck making that happen, and, of course, the Democrat fallback position is always to tax tax tax. But, here’s an interesting thing

However, I do not need to lecture The New York Times on that topic because it knows that lesson well. After all, the newspaper of record has its headquarters in a building built on land seized by the government under the power of eminent domain from ten different owners, some of whom did not want to sell, implying that the government exercise of power saved the developer money. In addition to that benefit, The New York Times also received $26 million in tax breaks in exchange for keeping jobs in New York City.

In fact, the NY Times itself reported that they received $29 million in tax breaks and other incentives, and tap-danced around the reality that they got the land and building for below market value rates thanks to Government. And the Times was super-thrilled that the city used eminent domain to take the land from the previous owners, which is certainly a perk, right?

It’s interesting that the Times allows Democrat Markell to write an op-ed blasting the exact same thing that the NY Times took advantage of, is it not? Perhaps Mr. Markell should demand that the NY Times pay his 100% tax.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Op-Ed: Government Shouldn’t Give Big Tax Breaks To Attract Companies »

Hot Take: The Electoral College Is A National Security Threat Or Something

Usually, the saying is “never go full Salon.” Today it’s “never go full Politico”, as Matthew Olsen and Benjamin Hass (both Hillary supporters) lose their minds

The Electoral College Is a National Security Threat

In Federalist No. 68, his pseudonymous essay on “The Mode of Electing the President,” Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Electoral College could shield the United States “from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” Because of the “transient existence” and dispersed makeup of the electors, he argued, hostile countries would find it too expensive and time-consuming to inject “sinister bias” into the process of choosing a president. At the time, the new American leaders feared meddling from Great Britain, their former colonial master, or perhaps from other powers such as France, and they designed a system to minimize the prospect that Europe’s aging monarchies could seize control of their young democracy.

Hamilton and his colleagues never could have envisioned a year like 2016, when an enemy state—Russia—was able to manipulate America’s election process with stunning effectiveness. But it’s clear the national security rationale for the Electoral College is outdated and therefore it should be retired. Simply put, it enables foreign powers to more easily pierce the very shield Hamilton imagined it would be.

Apparently, Putin kept Hillary from travelling to several states, which she needed to win in order to take the election. What this is really all about is Hillary voters not being able to MoveOn from the election loss, because they are a bunch of whiny assed children who really shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they are too mentally immature.

In Hamilton’s day, as he argued, it would have been nearly impossible for a hostile power to co-opt dozens of briefly chosen electors flung across 13 states with primitive roads. But in the social media age, the Electoral College system provides ripe microtargeting grounds for foreign actors who intend to sabotage presidential elections via information and disinformation campaigns, as well as by hacking our voting infrastructure. One reason is that citizens in certain states simply have more voting power than citizens in other states, such as Texas and California. This makes it easier for malign outside forces to direct their efforts.

Texas was going Trump, and California Hillary no matter what. But, by removing the EC, power invested in those two states would grow exponentially, taking all presidential election power out of smaller states…..but, this really doesn’t matter, because the article is just another bit of apoplectic insanity from people who aren’t emotionally mature enough to accept the results of the election.

Read: Hot Take: The Electoral College Is A National Security Threat Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a cup of coffee that will soon disappear from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Evil Blogger Lady, with a post on Graham-Cassidy Ocare “repeal”.

Read: If All You See… »

Chance For Graham-Cassidy (Non) Ocare Repeal Rising?

It looks like this may actually happen

(The Hill)  The Trump administration and Republican leaders in Congress are going all-in on a last-ditch effort to replace ObamaCare.

Earlier this month, the GOP effort was all but dead as Republican leaders pivoted to tax reform. But the health-care legislation has picked up a significant amount of momentum over the past several days.

“I’ve never felt better about where we’re at,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the bill’s sponsors, told reporters after senators met with Vice President Pence to discuss the new health-care proposal.

“At the end of the day, I really believe we’re going to get 50 Republican votes,” he added.

Many Republicans in the Senate and in Governor’s mansions are really enthused about this bill.

The upcoming deadline of Sept. 30 has also played a leading role in the rising prospects of the legislation. If an ObamaCare replacement bill isn’t signed into law by then under budget reconciliation rules, it would need 60 votes to pass.

Under the special rules, 50 votes plus a tie-breaker from Pence would send it to the House, where leading Republicans have indicated they would pass it and send it to Trump’s desk before the end of the month.

Rand Paul is a big “NO” on this bill.

He’s been all over the news stations this morning and the past few days, explaining that it is exactly Ocare light, that it just shifts some chairs around, but the chairs are the same. That this is not “federalism”, a word that keeps being thrown out by VP Mike Pence and other Graham-Cassidy supporters, but, doesn’t seem to be a word they understand. Is it better than Ocare? Yes. But not by much, and not as much as National Review would like to tell us (sadly).

Senator Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican, has one thing right: The latest Republican bill on health care is not a repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Under it, the Affordable Care Act’s taxes, spending, and regulation would mostly remain in place. Of course, previous Republican bills left a lot of Obamacare in place, too. For many months it has been clear that Republicans do not have the votes for a true replacement.

Where Paul is wrong is in opposing the Graham-Cassidy bill on that basis. A true replacement of Obamacare would be better than Graham-Cassidy, but Graham-Cassidy is still much better than Obamacare. It abolishes the individual and employer mandates, caps per capita spending on Medicaid, blocks federal funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortion, and lets interested states attain freedom from some of Obamacare’s regulations. Some of those states could use that freedom to create markets in which people outside of Medicare, Medicaid, and employer-based coverage would finally be enabled to buy cheap, renewable catastrophic-insurance policies.

In essence, it’s Ocare lite. It does NOT abolish Obamacare nor replace it with the legislation that was promised. The federal government is entirely in control of our health insurance and health care way too much. And, if it manages to pass the Senate, then pass the House, then signed by President Trump, it won’t be revisited. It won’t be made better. They won’t attempt to do things like allowing cross state insurance. They’ll think they’re done, and move on, and we’ll still be stuck with massive governmental intrusion.

Read: Chance For Graham-Cassidy (Non) Ocare Repeal Rising? »

Surprise: Global Warming Occurring More Slowly Than Portended

It’s amazing: we’re now told that the models are wrong. But Mankind is still to blame

Global warming may be occurring more slowly than previously thought, study suggests

Computer modelling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a study has found.

The Earth warmed more slowly than the models forecast, meaning the planet has a slightly better chance of meeting the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

Scientists said previous models may have been “on the hot side”.

The study, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, does not play down the threat which climate change has to the environment, and maintains that major reductions in emissions must be attained.

But the findings indicate the danger may not be as acute as was previously thought.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors told The Times: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

Remember back to Dr. Roy Spencer stating that the real consensus was 95%, as in, 95% of the models were wrong

He did this back in 2014. Looks like the Warmists are attempting to actually redo their models while still attempting to Blamestorm Mankind’s “carbon pollution.” They are still calling for “carbon budgets”, which would, of course, include carbon taxes and fees, more government control of citizens, economies, private entities, and the energy sector, and more loss of freedom coupled with a higher cost of living.

At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

But speaking to The Times he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said.

As James Delingpole notes

Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which they haven’t. Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the IPCC climate models have been running “too hot.” Indeed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper stating this three years ago. Naturally it was ignored by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the GWPF as a denialist institution which they claim – erroneously – is in the pay of sinister fossil fuel interests.

Exactly. The facts have not changed. The facts are the actual observations (well, the kinda do change, as the Warmists adjust, massage, smooth, and simply make up the data), and the observations disagree with the computer models, as Dr. Spencer noted.

Paul Homewood writes

1) We have known for several years that the climate models have been running far too hot.

This rather belated admission is welcome, but a cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.

2) I suspect part of the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers, including even James Hansen, have realised that it was not worth the paper it was written on.

This new study is designed to restore the belief that the original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and beyond.

3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.

Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.

4) Given that that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?

5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.

Powerline digs into the story, and comes up with an interesting tidbit, in regards to the Professor Grubb quote above

At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” [Emphasis added.]

A revealing slip of the mask, no? And what a disappointment that the climatistas will still have to put up with elections and the people and such. Authoritarianism is so much more fun.

This is pretty much a vindication of what Skeptics have been saying for well over a decade, and exposes what I’ve been writing and saying for a long time: this is fake science designed to prop up Progressive (nice Fascist) ideology and policy pushes.

But, don’t for one minute think they’ll stop. To paraphrase The Terminator “Listen, and understand! That Warmists are out there! They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop… ever, until you are dead paying lots of taxes!”

Read: Surprise: Global Warming Occurring More Slowly Than Portended »

Unlawfully Present Dreamers Sue Trump Over DACA Cancellation

It’s rather ironic: a bunch of people who are illegally present in the United States who were given temporary status by an executive order that did not go through the rule making process are now suing because Trump said he’d end it in 6 months over not being put through the rule making process

(The Hill) Six “Dreamers” — immigrants brought into the country illegally as children — are suing the Trump administration over President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Reuters reported Monday.

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco federal court Monday, is the first to be brought against the administration by recipients of the program. DACA provided its recipients with work permits and protection from deportation.

The plaintiffs are alleging that the Trump administration didn’t follow proper administrative procedures when deciding to end the program and that officials violated due process by revoking an enforcement promise, according to Reuters.

Two of the people suing Trump are Dulce Garcia, a San Diego attorney, and Jirayut “New” Latthivongskorn, a fourth-year medical student at the University of California, San Francisco.

The lawyer should understand that any presidential EO can be cancelled by another EO. The original did not go through the rule making process, it was simply implemented by Obama unilaterally. Furthermore, as far as public comments go? We did go through that process: it was called “an election.”

Due process? Over a promise from Mr. Obama? No. Silly

This is the latest lawsuit brought against Trump over his decision to end DACA. Several states have joined together to file a massive lawsuit to block Trump from stopping the program, and the University of California is also suing over the move.

One would think some lawyer somewhere would explain that Executive Orders are not permanent, that they can be cancelled at any time by another. Furthermore, they might explain that the EO was outside the legal boundaries established by Congress, since it gave legal status to people The Law considers to be legal, and excepted them from deportation completely, in contradiction to law.

Really, the illegal alien loving groups should think hard about what they’re doing, because they could push Trump to simply cancel DACA in total, particularly if Congress is not able to do anything by the end of the 6 months. He could wash his hands of the whole thing.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Unlawfully Present Dreamers Sue Trump Over DACA Cancellation »

‘Climate Change’ Could Totally Doom Coastal Cities Or Something

Neil deGrasse Tyson continues to bring the climacrazy

(Live Science) The United States “might not be able to recover” from climate change if extreme weather events and flooding continue to swamp the country’s largest coastal cities, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson told CNN yesterday (Sept. 17).

In an interview with reporter and TV host Fareed Zakaria on CNN’s “GPS,” Tyson discussed hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which dumped rain and brought heavy winds and storm surges to Texas and Florida, respectively.

When asked about Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert’s response to the hurricanes — that is, declining to say whether climate change had intensified the storms — Tyson lost his patience.

“Fifty inches of rain in Houston!” Tyson said, according to CNN. “This is a shot across our bow, a hurricane the width of Florida going up the center of Florida!”

That’s called weather. We’ve discussed this many times. We’ve also discussed that it was almost 12 years between major landfalling hurricanes. Is that ‘climate change’, too?

Research shows that human-caused climate change can make storms more extreme than they would be otherwise, Live Science reported previously. But humankind has been slow to curb the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, Tyson said, adding that the longer people take to respond to climate change, the bleaker the outcome for humanity gets.

They also quote Michael “Robust Debate” Mann, but, forget to ask other scientists, who say there is no proof of the assertion. Nor the UN IPCC, which won’t take a stance on this, either. Because they don’t have scientific proof of this, just talking points.

“I worry that we might not be able to recover from this, because all our greatest cities are on the oceans and water’s edges, historically for commerce and transportation,” Tyson said on CNN.

These cities will be the first to go as water levels rise, Tyson said. “And we don’t have a system — we don’t have a civilization with the capacity to pick up a city and move it inland 20 miles [32 kilometers],” he said. “This is happening faster than our ability to respond. That could have huge economic consequences.”

Well, guess what? You can’t come to ours. You know, all the “flyover country” you Leftist Warmists denigrate? Of course, it’s not really going to happen. It’s just more hysterical doom-saying from cultists.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Totally Doom Coastal Cities Or Something »

Bad Behavior has blocked 6144 access attempts in the last 7 days.