…is wine which is doomed from climate change, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post noting that Americans know the difference between Schiff and shinola.
Doubleshot below the fold, finishing up the Canadian pictures (both are Serinda Swann), so, check out The Daley Gator, with a post on moving to Virginia.
Read: If All You See… »
First of all, this is rather a hoot considering how far Obama went Left, and tried to take Democrats with him. But, hey, perhaps he learned something from watching Democrats lose well over a 1,000 federal, state, county, and local seats during his presidency, much like he learned that it’s easy to make Pronouncements on the campaign trail about the War on Terror and very different when in office
Obama cautions Democratic hopefuls on tacking too far left
Former President Barack Obama on Friday warned the Democratic field of White House hopefuls not to veer too far to the left, a move he said would alienate many who would otherwise be open to voting for the party’s nominee next year.
Though Obama did not mention anyone by name, the message delivered before a room of Democratic donors in Washington was a clear word of caution about the candidacies of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The two have called for massive structural changes — and in Sanders’ case “revolution†— that would dramatically alter the role of government in people’s lives.
The centrist wing of the party has warned for months that a far-left nominee could alienate moderate Republicans and independent voters needed to oust President Donald Trump.
“The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it’s important for us not to lose sight of that,†Obama said. “There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don’t want to see crazy stuff. They want to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.â€
How big is the centrist wing of the Democratic Party? No one really knows, since we mostly only hear from the extremists, and it seems that most who are elected are rather out there. Obama does have a point, but, A) it’s too late, and B) he’s surely telling them to simply lie. Candidates certainly have to appeal to the base to get the nomination in the primaries, and pivot during the general, but, what does one do when the campaign is so extreme during the primaries? Any pivot will be seen as disingenuous. It was one of the appeals of Trump. You saw who he was and that he meant what he said. He didn’t have to pivot, much like Reagan didn’t pivot (no, I’m not saying Trump is Reagan, but, Trump has done some excellent Conservative things, he talks about freedom, and he does fight back).
Still and all, it’s too late, they’ve all been exposed as being too far left. And you know Trump will not hold back on pointing this out.
Read: Too Late: Obama Cautions Democrats About Moving Too Far Left »
Mann just made St. Greta’s list. This is rather a scorching hot take as we see different sects start to appear within the Cult of Climastrology. In all fairness to St. Greta, she at least sorta attempts to walk the talk
Does Greta Thunberg’s Lifestyle Equal Climate Denial? One Climate Scientist Seems To Suggest So.
The climate debate has taken a nasty turn. It is no longer a shouting match between climate affirmers and climate deniers. Now the finger-wagging is taking place among climate affirmers on the subject of personal responsibility for combating climate change.
There are two key actors in this unfolding saga. One embraces the importance of individual responsibility while the other derides it.
Greta Thunberg, the new climate icon, does not fly. She is a vegan and subscribes to the stop-shop philosophy, which means that “you don’t buy new things, consume new things, unless you absolutely have to.†In a recent interview, Greta said, “I want to walk the talk, and to practice as I preach. So that is what I’m trying to do.”
In contrast, Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist, suggests that any talk of behavioral changes and personal responsibility reflects a soft form of climate denial. Although he did not mention Greta by name, he said: “First of all, there is an attempt being made by them to deflect attention away from finding policy solutions to global warming towards promoting individual behaviour changes that affect people’s diets, travel choices and other personal behaviour…. This approach is a softer form of denial and in many ways it is more pernicious.â€
See, the thing is, St. Greta doesn’t seem to understand that this isn’t really about the climate, it’s just a convenient scapegoat to emplace Progressive (nice Fascism) policies, with the government implementing lots of taxes and fees, controlling the lives of citizens, removing choice and freedom, dictating to private entities, controlling the energy, the economy, and everything. We can also refer to this as Modern Socialism. They want to do away with capitalism. They want to tell you what you can buy, what you can eat, where you can live, and where you can travel. How many kids you can have. Where you work. How much money you can have. Man-caused climate change is their platform.
And St. Greta isn’t helping them with her “I’ll at least attempt to practice what I preach” lifestyle. Though, with all due respect to Mann, she does want those same Progressive policies, she just doesn’t know it. With her “how dare you!” yammering she’s pushing to have them installed.
Because these are massive, system-wide changes, individual-level actions to become climate virtuous will not suffice. We can buy electric cars, but without charging stations, they are quite useless. And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government.
Really? The national, and heck, international, network of gas stations were not provided by government. But this is the way climate cultists, part of the larger Modern Socialist movement, think. To them, government is always the answer. Right up to Government interferes with their own life, of course.
The bottom line is that when people take personal responsibility, they begin to have skin in the game. Climate action becomes personal and it makes them more politically assertive in demanding policy changes. Instead of pointing fingers at individuals who walk the climate talk, climate scientists should start doing it themselves.
Well, looks like Mann is Old News, as the article is taking the side of St. Greta. But, no worries: you know the majority of Warmists lauding St. Greta will not change their own lives to match their talking points.
Read: Michael “Robust Debate” Mann Thinks St. Greta Is Actually A Climate Denier »
Now, in this case, all three are legal residents, though not U.S. citizens, as opposed to illegal aliens, but, the Democrat talking point about them only wanting the good illegal aliens, not the bad ones, should be kept in mind
California governor pardons 3 in bid to block deportations
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday announced that he is pardoning three men who separately committed crimes when they were each 19 years old and now are attempting to avoid being deported to Cambodia or Vietnam.
It’s the latest in a series of similar actions by the Democratic governor as the Trump administration ramps up efforts to deport those with criminal records, particularly to Southeast Asian nations.
California has fashioned itself as a “sanctuary state†for those in the country illegally, and in 2017 passed a law barring local and state agencies from cooperating with federal immigration authorities over those who have committed certain crimes, mostly misdemeanors.
So, what misdemeanors have these three fine, upstanding people committed?
Those pardoned include Saman Pho, 44, of Oakland, who was the subject of a state Capitol rally and petition drive earlier this month by immigrant rights groups. The group Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus said he was detained by immigration agents early last month.
He arrived in the United States at age 7, fleeing Cambodia with his family. He was convicted in 1995 of attempted murder after shooting a victim in the leg during a fight, served 12 years in prison and now has a U.S. citizen wife and four minor children.
The others are Santa Clara County residents Quyen Mai, 36, and Dat Vu, 38, both fighting deportation to Vietnam.
Mai was sentenced to nearly three years in prison after his conviction in 2005 of being an accessory following a shooting during a fight, according to the governor’s office. He is now executive director of the Vietnamese Voluntary Foundation, has several public service awards and started the first Vietnamese-American youth-run radio talk show. He entered the U.S. as a refugee when he was 11 years old.
Vu was convicted in 2000 of assaulting three men in two incidents and threatening a witness. He entered the U.S. at age 9 as a refugee from Vietnam and now has a U.S. citizen wife and two young children.
Those are some serious misdemeanors, eh? Oh, right, they’re all felonies. And Gavin is not pardoning them for being upstanding citizens since their release from prison, but, simply to stop deportations. Part of the condition of legal status, whether as a refugee, applying for citizenship, etc, is that they understand that if they commit crimes they get booted out. Pho was ordered deported under the Obama administration, as wee Mai and Vu.
Read: California Governor Pardons Three Felon Immigrants In Attempt To Shield Them From Deportation »
Trackback URL
Well, now, Jane has had a pretty good life. Travel all around the world using fossil fueled transportation, eating well, dressing well, living in by mansions, but, now, she’s unhinged and ready to deny Everyone Else the benefits of a modern life
https://twitter.com/JWSpry/status/1195292876327944192
From the link
Activist actress Jane Fonda suggested in an interview with Vice TV that “climate criminals†who run the fossil fuel industries in America and elsewhere should be tried for “crimes against humanity and nature†just like some Nazis were tried (and hanged) at the Nuremberg Trials following World War II.
Fonda told the interviewer, Michael Moynihan, that climate change is an existential threat like no other we have faced as a species. She said we should halt all pumping of oil and other fossil fuels immediately and find the people working in those industries good-paying union jobs elsewhere.
“Humankind has never been in this situation, where there is literally a ticking time bomb over everything,†she said. “Everything is subsumed under that — health care, national security, the economy — it’s all going to go out the window if we can’t address the worsening of climate change.â€
Hmm, wasn’t it AOC who said that “climate delayers” were as bad as climate deniers? Jane would be a delayer. She was moving to Washington, D.C. for 4 months from California for the protests. How is she getting around? Fossil fueled vehicles? She also has a residence in NY.
This really isn’t anything new: climate cultists have long wanted to jail and even execute non-Believers. Green Jihad is linking to this article.
Read: Hanoi Jane Wants “Climate Criminals” Prosecuted Like Nazis At Nuremberg »
…is sea that is empty of ice, because aren’t all Canadian waters supposed to be full of ice?, then you just might be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on feminists push “a day without men.”
Read: If All You See… »
I wonder how many will be getting speeding tickets, because, Doing Something about anthropogenic climate change is popular in theory, but, in practice, people do not want their lives impacted by “solutions”
Dutch government slashes highway speed limit to tackle climate change
Motorists in the Netherlands will soon have to slow down to do their bit to tackle climate change.
The Dutch government put forward a new climate change package on Wednesday.
It includes a controversial proposal to lower the day-time speed limit on motorways to just 100 km/h (62 mph) from the current 130 km/h (80 mph). At night, the limit will stay the same.
The new limit is expected to come into force as soon as possible and will be one of the lowest in Europe. In neighboring Germany, some sections of highways have no speed limit at all.
The Dutch government has little room for maneuver. Last year, it was told by a court to take urgent measures to reduce emissions. The court also ordered the government to ensure that the country’s emissions in 2020 will be at least 25% lower than those in 1990.
The court’s decision forced the government to put a number of large construction projects on hold.
Writing on his official Facebook account Wednesday, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said the new speed limit was a “rotten measure,” but added it was necessary in order to protect jobs and builders.
Heck, if they all really Believe, then they should all give up their own fossil fueled vehicles, right? And what of those who have electric vehicles? Does this apply to them? It sure seems so, as there are no exceptions. This is just the normal silliness for the Cult of Climastrology.
Read: We’re Saved: Dutch Gov’t Slashes Speed Limits To Stop Hotcoldwetdry »
I’m not quite sure why they are bothering, as the people in public housing are already depending on Government, already under their thumb, and already vote Democrat
AOC and Bernie’s Green New Deal Aims to Change Our Relationship With Public Housing
Public housing is home to 2 million people in the U.S. and a $70 billion backlog in repairs. It’s also largely an afterthought in American society, a place where people with seemingly nowhere else to go end up tucked away and out of sight.
Now, however, it’s the focus of the first piece of Green New Deal legislation. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders unveiled the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act on Thursday. It’s the second time they’ve teamed up on climate legislation, but it’s much more ambitious than the climate emergency declaration they introduced over the summer. The new bill that ties together threads to address inequality, job creation, and climate change. In doing so, it looks to right some of the shortsighted aspects of the original FDR-era New Deal that helped shape public housing as it exists today.
“It makes total sense to flesh out the Green New Deal by starting with housing,†Tara Raghuveer, the housing campaign director with People’s Action, told Earther in an email. “The housing, energy, and climate crises converge in American homes.â€(snip)
The guts of the Green New Deal for Public Housing focuses on fixing the current public housing that is spread across cities, rural areas, and tribal lands. That requires everything from updating wiring and appliances to plugging ventilation leaks, to installing renewable energy on-site. All that would improve efficiency and help cut down on building carbon pollution, addressing the central tenet of the Green New Deal to get the U.S. zero carbon-free energy by 2030.
See, they could have done this without the idiotic GND/climate change/carbon pollution idiocy. But, their membership in the Cult of Climastrology requires them to include it with everything.
Likewise, workers installing energy-related retrofits in public housing would be learning skills that will come into demand across the building sector, which currently accounts for up to 40 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. The bill would further require any grants awarded be used to hire a rising percentage of low-income individuals over the length of the project.
So, the companies are going to have to hire people who don’t know what they’re doing and train them as they are building and constructing? This should work out well.
The bill also includes language about building bike lanes and having bikes available to residents and senior- and childcare centers, as well as accessibility to organic groceries. It’s these types of additions to the bill that actually get at the heart of the Green New Deal. One, because they will almost surely be derided by conservatives (who would’ve slagged the bill anyway). But more importantly, they help construct the vision progressives like Sanders and AOC are building for mid-21st century America.
The heart of the GND isn’t about being “green”, it’s about government control and, as AOC’s former chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti stated “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all” and “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?†Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.â€
The Green New Deal for Public Housing is a way to think about how to do better. It’s about lifting up those who have been neglected and hit hardest by the crises of inequality and climate change. And it’s about de-stigmatizing public housing in the U.S. and maybe even turning it into a place people want to live. The bill in many ways dovetails with other seemingly radical ideas gaining progressive steam like a homes guarantee.
Whoa, whoa, maybe we’re finally on to the point of this whole thing, as we get near the end of the article
“The future of public housing in my mind is Vienna where people make a choice … to live in good housing,†Aldana Cohen said when I asked him to picture America after the Green New Deal for Public Housing. “It’s a place where parents choose to raise children, where old people live out their lives near amenities they need. It’s about turning the public asset into a true hub of the good life. A good, carbon-free, safe life.â€
So, the point here is really about getting more and more citizens to choose to live in public housing, making even more people dependent on the federal government, which creates more Democratic Party voters, all while creating more control of more citizens.
Read: Comrade Bernie, AOC Release Green New Deal For Public Housing »
Things are really not going well in Liberal World. No one really cares that much. The first hearing drew only 13 million viewers
According to Axios, Wednesday’s lackluster impeachment hearing drew just 13 million viewers. The number pales in comparison to those who viewed former FBI Director James Comey’s June 2017 testimony and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s September 2018 hearing, which saw 19.5 million viewers and 20 million viewers, respectively.
They do note that people were certainly tuned in through alternative media, but, still, this is about impeachment of a sitting U.S. President. You’d think there would be 25-30 million. Further
Democrats Scramble, Switch Impeachment Narrative to ‘Attempted’ Crimes After Lackluster Hearing
Democrats have been scrambling following Wednesday’s lackluster public impeachment hearing, changing the focus of their impeachment narrative to “attempted†crimes after Republican lawmakers largely decimated their weak impeachment case.
Wednesday’s public impeachment hearing, which featured testimonies from acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor and senior State Department official George Kent, was deemed a bust by many, including Democrats.
“It was a total disaster for us,†one senior House Democrat aide told Breitbart News.
“It’s hearsay,†Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ) said of Taylor’s testimony. “It’s really difficult dealing with this because it’s he said-she said.â€
Due to the Republicans’ strong counternarrative, Democrats and the establishment media are moving the goalposts, arguing instead that Trump is guilty of “attempted†bribery and extortion. It has been an emerging talking point in recent days – one which Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) alluded to during Wednesday’s hearing:
“So ambassadors, is attempted murder a crime?†he asked, repeating his question. “Is attempted murder a crime?â€
“Attempted murder is a crime,†Taylor said.
“Is attempted robbery a crime?†he asked.
“Neither of us is a lawyer,†Taylor began before Castro interrupted.
“I think anyone in this room could answer that question,†he said.
“I’ll go out on a limb and say yes it is,†Taylor said.
“Is attempted extortion and bribery a crime?†Castro asked, trying to draw a parallel.
“I don’t know sir,†Taylor said.
See, it doesn’t work like that. Those are not crimes.
Based on the evidence that I've seen, the President did one of two things:
1) Either he committed extortion and bribery of a foreign official;
2) Or, he committed attempted extortion and bribery of a foreign official.
Either way, it's still a crime. @CNNSitRoom pic.twitter.com/AA3DrBdxEY
— Joaquin Castro (@JoaquinCastrotx) November 14, 2019
MoveOn, which was founded on moving on from impeaching President William Clinton, is super excited by this narrative, and is pushing it themselves, as are many other liberals, anywhere from big fish liberal pundits to sitting elected representatives. But, hey, if they want to talk “attempted bribery”, let’s talk about Obama’s actual bribery of Iran, giving them hundreds of billions to get them to do the Iran nuclear deal (which was really bad for America).
Read: New Democrat Narrative: Ukraine Was About An Attempted Crime, Not A Crime Crime »
Gun grabbers keep proving that they aren’t doing this for safety, they just want to ban guns
If we can’t get rid of guns, why not get rid of the ammunition? | Opinion
Walmart got it right when it announced early September, following the mass murder of 22 people at one of its El Paso stores, that it would cease selling ammunition for all handguns and military-style weapons. It was the corporation’s way of saying getting the guns is not the answer.
The truth is, the guns can’t be gotten. I’ve seen that in Connecticut, a state known for stringent gun laws. Several months before the 2012 tragedy in Newtown, I happened to be in Stamford, Conn., police headquarters. Taped to a wall was a flier announcing the city’s latest antigun campaign, requesting that citizens voluntarily turn in their firearms.
“How many guns have you collected?†I asked the officer on duty.
“About 75.†It was more than he’d expected, he said.
According to that officer, and my Congressman U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, none of the near-useless weapons turned in was illegal. And that’s the fundamental problem. It’s difficult to convince legal gun owners to part with a viable weapon. What hope is there that a criminal, or a gun owner who is mentally unfit, will voluntarily surrender one?
So, all these criminals who have illegal guns won’t be able to buy ammunition?
The most expedient method of removing firearms from those who shouldn’t have them would be to pass federal legislation making confiscation mandatory — as Australia did, following a spate of mass killings that culminated in a 1996 nightclub massacre that took 35 lives. Twelve days later, the nation enacted strict gun reform legislation that limited the types of firearms available to civilians. The government has since collected and destroyed more than a million weapons through buyback and amnesty programs. Over the next 20 years, Australia suffered not a single fatal mass shooting.
Not mentioned is that only about 20% of firearms have been turned in in Australia. And that people who unlawfully possessed them aren’t going to turn them in
Gun policy experts say that strategy wouldn’t work here. “The U.S. gives too much power to single-issue lobbies,†explained David Hemenway, a Harvard professor of health policy, referring to the influence of the National Rifle Association.
The government doesn’t GIVE power to lobbies: the Constitution makes sure that the Government cannot silence them. The People are supposed to have the power.
Today, one can walk into a gun shop and purchase, for instance, a .22, .38, or .44-caliber handgun. Most firearms are built to accommodate one size round only. So here’s what would happen if the manufacture of today’s standard-size rounds were outlawed, and .23, .39 and .46-caliber rounds took their place: Eventually, gun owners would run out of the old ammo, and their weapons would become paperweights.
And this would effect criminals how? They’ll just purchase illegally trafficked ammo. Of course, the law abiding could make their own ammo, but, really, most, especially women, would be just left at the mercy of criminals.
As far as the new round size, it doesn’t make sense, and if you read the rest of the screed, it still doesn’t make sense. Unless the idea is to require a registration and to limit who can have them. And what of rounds used for hunting? The AR-15 uses the same .223 round as lots and lots of hunting rifles. What of the rounds used for other hunting rifles? Will they be banned, too?
Read: Surprise: Gun Grabbers Want To Come After Your Ammo To Make Your Firearm Worthless »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
