Washington Post: Say, Will Trump Scare Democrats Into Not Being Nutjobs?

By William Teach February 20, 2020 – 3:08 pm

EJ Dionne has Thoughts

Will Trump scare some sense into the Democrats?

While the Democratic presidential candidates tear each other to pieces, President Trump is sending a message to the country: The rule of law means nothing to him. He will weaponize the federal government to his own political purposes, and things will only get worse if he’s reelected.

Trump has said many awful things, but here are his most chilling words yet: “I’m actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country.”

Trump as “the chief law enforcement officer” is akin to putting the Houston Astros in charge of policing cheating in Major League Baseball.

It should worry Democrats that as the dangers posed by four more years of Trump (and two more years of a supine GOP Senate) become clearer, their presidential race may be coming down to a choice between a billionaire and a democratic socialist. “ ’Tis the final conflict,” as “The Internationale,” the old anthem of the left, put it. It’s hard to imagine a confrontation more likely to shatter the party.

What follows is lots of whining, including about Trump providing pardons, clemencies, and commutations, which is totes different from when Obama did it, you know. And lots more whining, because

But this is not a normal time. We have seen too many cases in history when authoritarian leaders triumphed because their opponents were so focused on adversaries within their own camp that they lost track of the larger struggle to preserve democracy and free government.

I’m still waiting for some Lefty to explain how, exactly, Trump is authoritarian, and how he is controlling their lives. I mean, isn’t that exactly what most of the Democrats are saying they each want to do?

Thus a modest suggestion: Can these Democratic candidates start competing over who is best positioned to bring together the majority of Americans who disapprove of how Trump is running things? Can they try to prove it by reaching out now to constituencies not part of their own natural base — and by taming the furies within their own factions? Can they look at the smirk on Trump’s face and realize the damage they’ll do our nation if they just pretend that this primary is like every other?

Nope. They’re all nuts, and none of them will reign in the wackadoodle. They’re all trying to see how much they can appeal to the extremists in the Democrat party. And they won’t stop.

Read: Washington Post: Say, Will Trump Scare Democrats Into Not Being Nutjobs? »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 20, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible paper book made from killing carbon pollution sucking trees, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Crawdad Hole, with a post on the #NeverTrump unity dream team.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump’s Budget Looks To Slash Funding To Hotcoldwetdry Centers

By William Teach February 20, 2020 – 10:30 am

Knowing what the climate is doing is a good thing. Funding people who are essentially doomsday cultists? Not so much

Trump budget calls for slashing funds to climate science centers

President Trump’s budget proposes closing a network of climate science centers, prompting concerns the administration will hamstring climate change research while booting employees from the federal workforce.

Trump’s fiscal year 2021 budget would slash funding for the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers, eliminating all $38 million for research to help wildlife and humans “adapt to a changing climate.”

Rather than fund all eight regional centers along with the national one, the budget instead calls for just one center, at a cost of $20 million.

The restructuring plans follow similar steps employed by the Trump administration, where agencies with research ties are reshuffled or relocated, often prompting a reduction in staff.

Um, wildlife has always adapted to climate changes. They don’t need mankind’s help. Of course, what these centers really do is come out with doomsaying prognostications and recommendations to spend even more money, with the taxpayer funding them. Do we really need 8 apocalyptic centers?

Read: Trump’s Budget Looks To Slash Funding To Hotcoldwetdry Centers »

Posted in Donald Trump, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Fault: Hotcoldwetdry To Kill Off All Corals By 2100, So Stop Focusing On Pollution

By William Teach February 20, 2020 – 8:26 am

Apparently, the Doomsday Cult of Climastrology is back to pimping doom for all corals, because their apocalyptic ideas are never shelved for long

Climate change could kill all of Earth’s coral reefs by 2100, scientists warn

Climate change could destroy almost all of Earth’s coral reef habitats by 2100, according to new research.

About 70-90% of all existing coral reefs are expected to disappear in the next 20 years due to warming oceans, acidic water and pollution, said scientists from the University of Hawaii Manoa, who presented their findings Monday at an ocean sciences conference.

“By 2100, it’s looking quite grim,” said Renee Setter, one of the University of Hawaii Manoa researchers, in a press release. (snip)

After examining the world’s oceans, they reached a somber conclusion: “By 2100, few to zero suitable coral habitats will remain.”

Most parts of the ocean where coral reefs live today won’t be suitable by 2045 — and the health and condition of these environments are only likely to get worse by 2100, according to the team’s simulations.

There’s plenty more doom in the screed, but, hey, we can fix this all with a tax and government controlling your life, right?

Obviously, I’m no scientist, but, I can read, and, perhaps these scientists and those writing the doomsday articles can explain why corals, which developed when seas where much warmer and the levels much higher. And that corals like warm water. And that this is all based on computer models and apocalyptic thinking, which is what the CoC is best at.

“Trying to clean up the beaches is great and trying to combat pollution is fantastic. We need to continue those efforts,” Setter said in the release. “But at the end of the day, fighting climate change is really what we need to be advocating for in order to protect corals and avoid compounded stressors.”

Yup, that’s the talk of a cult.

Read: Your Fault: Hotcoldwetdry To Kill Off All Corals By 2100, So Stop Focusing On Pollution »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Comrade Bernie Seems Upset Bloomberg Called Him Out On His Three Homes

By William Teach February 20, 2020 – 8:10 am

The Nevada debate was a sh*t show of attacks followed by attacks followed by attacks, and, while there was lots of bad blood between (especially between Mayor Pete and Amy K), all, it was really aimed at Mikey B. Bloomberg was savaged seconds in. Fake Indian went after him on #MeToo. Others nailed him, and, as noted, Bloomberg spent a lot of money to get dusted on stage (he still has lots of money, though).

But, he landed some jabs, too

‘Cheap shot’: Sanders fires back when Bloomberg goes after ‘socialism’

Michael Bloomberg attacked Sen. Bernie Sanders at Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, with the billionaire former New York City mayor claiming the self-described democratic socialist’s ownership of multiple homes makes him a hypocrite.

Bloomberg also accused Sanders of trying to “throw out capitalism” — something that he said resulted in “communism” in other countries. Sanders called the comparison “a cheap shot.”

“The best-known socialist in the country is a millionaire with three homes,” said Bloomberg, who is worth an estimated $64.2 billion.

Sanders, who is worth an estimated $2.5 million, explained that he has a home in Washington, D.C., where he works as a senator, a home in Burlington, Vt., and “like many in Vermont, I have a summer camp.”

I mean, we all have three homes, right? Especially that summer camp, right? But, regardless, Comrade Bernie is pushing hardcore Modern Socialism, where the government has control of everything. Including your life and your money.

The onstage spat began with Sanders calling Bloomberg’s amassing of more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans “immoral.”

Bloomberg, who is self-funding his campaign, was unapologetic about his billions.

“I worked hard for it,” he said. “And I am giving it all away.”

After Sanders suggested that billionaires should not exist, given the country’s wealth inequality crisis, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd turned to Bloomberg.

“Mayor Bloomberg, should you exist?” Todd asked.

“I can’t speak for all billionaires,” Bloomberg replied. “All I know is, I’ve been very lucky, made a lot of money and I’m giving it all away to make this country better.”

This is in no way a full defense of Mike, but, he earned that money by working hard and coming up with a fantastic idea. And he spends quite a bit on charity and such. He believes pretty hard in trickle down economics. I listed to an interview with him one Sunday while driving back from the parents house in NJ when he was leaving the mayor’s office, and he talked about wanting millionaires and billionaires and big companies to come to NYC and spread that money and the jobs around. He understands business, and that massive government intervention is a Bad Idea.

Of course, he also wants massive government intervention in the lives of citizens, he wants to take your guns away, he wants to implement ‘climate change’ policies. So, while he may be goo economically as a president, his Nanny State policies are a non-starter. He’d still be better than the rest of the nutjobs.

Regardless, Bernie is the person he needs to hit, and highlighting Bernie’s hypocrisy will probably show up in a Trump commercial if Bernie is the nominee.

Read: Comrade Bernie Seems Upset Bloomberg Called Him Out On His Three Homes »

Posted in Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: EU Green Deal Will Line The Pockets Of The Rich

By William Teach February 19, 2020 – 3:00 pm

Well, that’s strange. I thought all these Green New Deals were all about helping the disadvantaged and stuff

The European Green Deal will bypass the poor and go straight to the rich

…

The European Green Deal is the European commission’s proposed €1tn plan to finance the transition away from fossil fuels to decarbonising Europe’s economy. But the commission quietly dropped the word “new” from original US plans for a green new deal, which of course echo Franklin D Roosevelt’s Depression-era economic New Deal.

Losing that “new” is a signal that the commission does not seek system change through ambitious green macroeconomics and tough regulation of carbon financiers. Rather, it takes a politics as usual, third-way approach that seeks to nudge the market towards decarbonisation.

The macroeconomics of the European Green Deal remains trapped in the black zero logic of austerity. Instead of ambitious green fiscal activism, it mostly reshuffles existing European funds through a logic of seed funding to mobilise private sector money. Public money will be used to take risk out of private business activities and finance a “just transition” mechanism that promises to protect groups like Polish miners after their coal mines close through retraining and reskilling programmes.

Well, really, this is all truly pushed by the rich and powerful to enrich themselves and giving them even more power. Useful Idiots at the lower economic sector follow along, never realizing that they are, in fact, Useful Idiots.

Read: Surprise: EU Green Deal Will Line The Pockets Of The Rich »

Posted in Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 19, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible evil ice cream from horrible evil cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on red flag laws in theory vs practice.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

United Nations: Tiny Increase In Global Temps Threatens Future Of All Children Or Something

By William Teach February 19, 2020 – 10:30 am

There’s not a big United Nations Hotcoldwetdry meeting coming up, is there? The U.N. usually reserves this kind of fear-mongering for the month before the Conference On The Parties working vacations in December

Climate change threatens future of all children: UN report

The future of every single child in the world is at risk as nations across the world fail to curb the effects of climate change and provide a clean and healthy environment essential for their well-being, according to a report commissioned by the United Nations.

“Climate change, ecological degradation, migrating populations, conflict, pervasive inequalities, and predatory commercial practices threaten the health and future of children in every country,” the report, authored by more than 40 child and adolescent health experts, said.

While the children in wealthy nations have a better chance at survival and well-being, those same countries disproportionately contribute to the carbon emissions threatening the future of all children, the joint report by the World Health Organization, UNICEF and medical journal The Lancet found.

It further added that not a single country performed well in all three categories measured: child flourishing, sustainability, and equity.

So, if we get rid of capitalism and put in a government run economic system, along with lots of taxes and such, everything will be OK, right?

CO2 has nothing to do with a clean and healthy environment. War has always happened. There has always been inequality. Welcome to life on Earth.

Read: United Nations: Tiny Increase In Global Temps Threatens Future Of All Children Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, UN | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Australia Looks To Solve ‘Climate Change’ With Technology Instead Of Taxation

By William Teach February 19, 2020 – 8:39 am

This has seemed to make the Cult of Climastrology rather upset

Government to take ‘technology over taxation’ approach to climate change

Scott Morrison has described a report he may adopt a technology investment target to avoid signing up to a commitment of zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 as speculation, but confirmed his government will take a “technology over taxation” approach to climate change.

On Tuesday, Morrison told reporters in Melbourne the report in the Australian was “very speculative”, but said it was true that emissions reductions were achieved through technology, not “meetings”.

The Australian suggested Morrison favoured a technology investment target as a way to help Australia resist an international push for a more explicit commitment to reduce emissions to net zero by mid-century at the next major UN climate summit in Glasgow in November. (snip)

At a press conference on Tuesday, Morrison reiterated that Australia would not make commitments without “having thoroughly looked at what is the impact on jobs … on electricity prices … [and] on rural and regional Australia”.

Asked if an investment target would create tension with those who want a net zero emissions commitment, Morrison said “currently no one can tell me that going down that path won’t cost jobs, won’t put up your electricity prices”. (snip)

“You want to get global emissions down? … You need technology that can be accessed and put in place, not just here in Australia, but all around the world. Meetings won’t achieve that, technology does. And I can tell you taxes won’t achieve it either.”

See, not taxing and feeing people heavily, along with not implementing all sorts of government controls on people, private entities, the energy sector, and the economy make Warmists upset. For some reason they have allowed themselves to be convinced that the government taking lots of their own money and dictating their lives is a good thing.

Now, what if they could come up with technology that helps achieve the goals of the CoC in reducing “carbon pollution”? Better solar, better wind power, better batteries, and so forth. If we could replace coal, which I’ve never been a fan of, cheaply and without covering square miles of land with solar panels? If the cost of solar could not only be drastically reduced for individual homeowners, but its energy capture could be drastically increased? I’m not concerned with the CO2 output of things like coal and gas, but the actual pollutants they leave in the air and water.

But, again, Warmists do not like this approach, because it isn’t authoritarian government. They never seem to get that the negative parts of the policies they push will hit their own lives.

Read: Australia Looks To Solve ‘Climate Change’ With Technology Instead Of Taxation »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Comrade Bernie And His Three Houses Upset Bloomberg Is Trying To Buy Election

By William Teach February 19, 2020 – 8:17 am

Bernie made his money the old fashioned way: hey got elected and then capitalized on it

Sanders: ‘Obscene’ Bloomberg Is Trying to ‘Buy the Presidency’ – I’ll Support Dem Nominee

During a town hall on CNN on Tuesday, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) stated that he thinks it is “obscene” that fellow 2020 Democrat former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is trying to “buy the presidency.” And that he “will support the Democratic nominee.”

Sanders said, “I do think it’s a bit obscene that we have somebody who, by the way, chose not to contest in Iowa, in Nevada, in South Carolina, in New Hampshire, where all of the candidates, we did town meetings. We’re talking to thousands and thousands of people, working hard. He said, I don’t have to do that. I’m worth $60 billion. I have more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans. I’ll buy the presidency. That offends me very much.”

Without being in the Senate, no one would have bought Bernie’s book, which made him rich. Bernie is trying to buy the election using Other People’s money. Seriously, what’s the difference between doing that and Bloomberg using his own money? I wonder if Comrade Bernie was upset when Barack Obama broke his pledge to John McCain to take the public option for the general election and instead continued to raise money, spending almost $750 million. Or in 2012, when Obama raised almost a billion dollars.

You know what’s obscene? Out of state money flowing to state and federal level candidates and elected officials. AOC received around 80% of her funding from people and companies that aren’t even in her district. Money flows from out of state to support/defeat propositions. That’s obscene.

Also obscene, people getting elected to Congress and then making boatloads of money off their position.

Sanders later stated, “[I]f Mr. Bloomberg wins, and I certainly hope he does not, I will support the Democratic nominee.”

Well, you know, perhaps the #NeverTrumpers could learn something. If they had Trump’s record in office laid out in front of them and didn’t know the name, they’d support him. Instead, the nutjobs want to support socialist Democrats because they’re so deranged.

Read: Comrade Bernie And His Three Houses Upset Bloomberg Is Trying To Buy Election »

Posted in Democrats | 16 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove