Republicans Oppose Parts Of Democrat “Coronavirus” Bill, Which Includes Abortion Funding

By William Teach March 13, 2020 – 6:55 am

Never let a good crisis go to waste, right?

Republicans oppose Pelosi’s coronavirus legislation, flagging ‘major’ problems

The White House and congressional Republicans have poured cold water on the House Democrats’ coronavirus legislation to provide economic relief to Americans, signaling there won’t be immediate broad bipartisan support for the pending bill unless it undergoes changes.

One senior administration official said the White House has “serious concerns” with the measure put forth by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., late Wednesday to help families deal with the economic hardships of the pandemic.

And House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said the legislation “comes up short.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., panned the bill as an “ideological wish list,” putting the legislation in limbo.

President Trump doesn’t support the legislation in its current form and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin continues to work with Pelosi on changing some language, White House officials told Fox News Thursday morning.

Among the White House concerns are increasing spending on Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income families, without structural reforms, and not including language to ban federal funds for abortion, the official said.

McCarthy said there’s two “major problems.” First, creating a paid sick leave program through the Social Security Administration that would take six months to set up and hamper the agency’s normal functioning of disbursing checks to senior citizens. The second is forcing permanent paid sick leave “for all businesses without exemptions and no sunsets,” McCarthy said.

A lot of what Democrats have in their bill are things that won’t work right now, things in the future, and things that will never end. Did you know that the bill is 124 pages long? And, it was enough for MSNBC’s Joy Reid to opinine

MSNBC host Joy Reid appeared bewildered over reports that the proposed emergency spending bill from House Democrats to combat the coronavirus outbreak was halted over a dispute involving “abortion.”

Reid took to Twitter and reacted to one of her colleague’s reporting on the dust-up between Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

“Wow… @kasie just reported that Republicans’ objections to the House Democrats’ emergency coronavirus bill include issues related to abortion. What does that have to do with COVID19…?” Reid asked.

The Daily Caller reported on Thursday that Pelosi sought funding as what was described as a “loophole” around the Hyde Amendment, which outlaws taxpayer-funded abortions, among other things included in the bill.

No matter what, the Democrats seem to want to include abortion. Did they do this on purpose in order to attempt to get the bill spiked so they could blame Republicans?

Read: Republicans Oppose Parts Of Democrat “Coronavirus” Bill, Which Includes Abortion Funding »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Californian’s Vote Down A Whole Bunch Of New Taxes

By William Teach March 12, 2020 – 3:00 pm

Seriously, how dare they! Aren’t they super progressive and want to help the less fortunate and save the planet? Oh, right, right, they’re good with Other People getting taxed out the wahoo

Had enough? Californians turn down higher taxes, debt

Everyone knows that living in California comes with a price: Its residents pay some of the nation’s highest taxes on the money they earn, the gas they pump and the clothes they wear. But for the moment, at least, it appears voters have had enough.

The defeat Tuesday of the largest borrowing proposal in the history of California schools — $15 billion for repairs — has opened the question of whether voters put a temporary halt to the growth of government debt because of the unsettled political scene, or because they are on the cusp of a tax revolt akin to one in the 1970s that brought landmark changes to property taxes.

By itself, the crash of the question on the March 3 primary ballot was striking — it’s been a generation since a state school bond failed and there was no telling moment prior to the election indicating voters had soured on it.

But it didn’t stop there. Voters rejected more than half of the 237 local tax and bond measures on that ballot, with several dozen contests still undecided as California authorities wade through hundreds of thousands of uncounted ballots, according to a tally by the California Taxpayers Association.

This was a wide range of taxes, things like school bonds, cannabis taxes, parcel taxes, sales tax, transient occupancy taxes (which will increase costs for hotels and other things), and even a vacancy tax on unused 1st floors in San Francisco

A final tally of votes remains incomplete, but there is agreement on both sides that no single reason explains the downfall of the big bond. It looks like a mix of factors, not the least of which was jitters over the staggering stock market, the presidential race and the coronavirus outbreak sweeping the globe.

There also was confusion over precisely what the proposal would do and uncertain voters tend to vote no. Polling also shows voters believe taxes are too high.

Additionally, there is widespread anger over soaring housing costs, a troubled and vastly over-budget high-speed rail project and a homelessness crisis in the state’s major cities.

“There is a sense that California isn’t working,” Claremont McKenna College political scientist Jack Pitney said. When a fresh request came from Sacramento for billions in new debt, voters said: “We’ve been taxed enough.”

Yet, the same people will keep voting in state, county, and local lawmakers who will keep costs and taxes high. So, don’t feel bad for them.

Read: Californian’s Vote Down A Whole Bunch Of New Taxes »

Posted in Democrats, Taxation | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 12, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea made rough from carbon pollution driven waves, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on whether it’s time to panic yet.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 30 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cult Scientists Say They Won’t Know How Bad Doom Will Be Despite Always Proclaiming Doom

By William Teach March 12, 2020 – 10:30 am

They won’t know how bad doom will be till the crisis is already here, you know

We climate scientists won’t know exactly how the crisis will unfold until it’s too late

When we hold on to things for too long, change can come about abruptly and even catastrophically. While this will ring true for many from personal experience, similar things can happen at large scales as well. Indeed, the history of Earth’s climate and ecosystems is punctuated by frequent large-scale disruptive events.

When the air warmed and the last ice age was coming to an end, the continent-size glaciers – or ice sheets – stayed around for much longer than the climate would allow. Then parts of them collapsed in spectacular fashion. One such collapse – we still don’t know of which ice sheet – caused at least four metres of sea level rise per century and possibly also the following abrupt transition to a much warmer climate, only to be followed by an equally abrupt flip-flop between warm and cold conditions, before the onset of the stable climate we have enjoyed until recently.

This long period of stability seems to have ended already. Australia’s climate had been warming rapidly for many decades, and eventually the moment came when record-breaking extreme heat coupled with an exceptionally dry period created the conditions for a series of mega fires.

See, climate used to be natural, but now it’s totally manmade, especially those fires which were mostly set by humans. But, we’re going to blame carbon pollution

Predictive models are the lifeblood of climate science, and the foundation upon which political responses to the climate and ecological crisis are often based. But their ability to predict such large-scale disruptive events is severely limited.

Computer models: doomsaying in, doomsaying out

We know quite well that the climate we are about to create resembles that of millions of years ago, but we are mostly ignorant about how fast this will happen and what it means for humans and ecosystems. Yet scientists rarely point out the uncertainties in their predictions – in particular worst-case scenarios that are beyond the capability of models – and prefer to stick to the conservative but firm conclusions that can be drawn from well-established models.

Doom!

We must have the humility to accept how much we do not know – including at what point it is too late to prevent catastrophic tipping points and the consequent large-scale disruption. Only then can we free the political response from operating according to conservative assumptions and mid-range scenarios, and base it firmly on preventing a worst-case scenario.

“We know doom is coming, just not how bad, so, give the government your money and freedom. Oh, and us more money to scare you into giving up your money and freedom.” Funny how they keep telling us this isn’t about politics then proving it is about politics.

Read: Climate Cult Scientists Say They Won’t Know How Bad Doom Will Be Despite Always Proclaiming Doom »

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

UN General Secretary Claims ‘Climate Change’ Is Bigger Threat Than Coronavirus

By William Teach March 12, 2020 – 8:57 am

Because, this silly virus is a distraction from the Really Important Issue, which is why lots of global big wigs took long fossil fueled flights and limo rides

Climate change is a bigger threat than coronavirus, says UN Secretary General

The UN Secretary General, António Guterres, is worried that the coronavirus panic will distract people from the fight against climate change, which he says is far more important. Speaking in New York at the launch of a new UN climate report published on March 10, Guterres said, “We will not fight climate change with a virus.”

He was referring to a question about the coronavirus’ impact on the planet, and how there has been a drop in global greenhouse gas emissions due to the sudden economic slowdown. China’s CO2 emissions have dropped by a quarter, equal to 100 million metric tons. While this may have short-lived benefits for the planet, Guterres insisted that we cannot lose sight of the big picture.

“The disease is expected to be temporary, [but] climate change has been a phenomenon for many years, and will ‘remain with us for decades and require constant action’… Both [COVID-19 and climate change] require a determined response. Both must be defeated.” (snip)

Guterres said, “I call on everyone ― from government, civil society and business leaders to individual citizens – to heed these facts and take urgent action to halt the worst effects of climate change.” What’s interesting is that everyone is doing precisely this to deal with the spread of the coronavirus, which goes to show that governments, individuals, and businesses have the global capability to take rapid and strong action, but have lacked the will to do so until now. Now if only this momentum could be funnelled toward fighting climate change with the same dedication.

Except, Coronavirus is real. It may be very overblown in the scare factor, but, it is real, and more deadly than the flu, at least for older folks and those already sick. ‘Climate change’ is simply a way to scare people into allowing government to control their lives and take their money.

“While coronavirus has resulted in a very sudden scale down in industrial production due to a public health emergency, living through this spasm may allow citizens to imagine, and policy-makers to plan, how it is possible to live differently in response to the ecological emergency. Reducing economic activity and industrial output is a means to enable global ecosystems to regenerate.”

So, all you people out there, are you enjoying the lower economic activity? Do you want to be unemployed and dependent on the government? Do you want your earnings reduced? Maybe people should imagine all this. And see how their lives are negatively affected by supporting the Cult of Climastrology.

Read: UN General Secretary Claims ‘Climate Change’ Is Bigger Threat Than Coronavirus »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Supreme Court Allows Trump’s Remain In Mexico Policy To Stand

By William Teach March 12, 2020 – 8:41 am

What will the Open Borders advocates do now? Will they start this lawsuit all over, working up to the Supreme Court, thinking the outcome will be different? Will they be willing to wait till the full court proceedings are over?

Supreme Court gives Trump win by allowing ‘remain in Mexico’ policy to continue

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a win to President Trump on Wednesday by allowing his administration to enforce the “Remain in Mexico” asylum policy as litigation surrounding it continues.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had said a week earlier that it would block the policy in Arizona and California, the two border states where its authority extends. The Trump administration then turned to the Supreme Court for relief.

“The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the district court’s April 8, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari,” the Supreme Court said in an order, which noted that Justice Sonia Sotomayor opposed the Trump administration’s stay application.

The high court action came a day before the lower court order was to have taken effect. Instead, the “Remain in Mexico” policy will remain in force while a lawsuit challenging it plays out in the courts.

The Justice Department responded Wednesday by saying the high court’s order restores “the government’s ability to manage the Southwest border and to work cooperatively with the Mexican government to address illegal immigration.”

If people are serious about wanting asylum, they should be applying at embassies and designated areas outside of the U.S., rather than just showing up and demanding entrance. And attempting to illegally cross the border. Too often, these people who claim to want asylum are released in the U.S. interior while waiting for a court date, and never show up. And then they start demanding citizenship and money and education and housing and healthcare and etc, and the Open Borders advocates support them.

And, a very small portion of those applying fit the designation for asylum. Once they are in the U.S., though, it is hard to get rid of them, thanks in part to Open Borders advocates, who file suit after suit to keep those people here.

If you want a return to Open Borders, vote Biden. If you want to protect the sovereignty of the U.S., vote Trump.

Read: Supreme Court Allows Trump’s Remain In Mexico Policy To Stand »

Posted in Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Supreme Court Allows Trump’s Remain In Mexico Policy To Stand | Trackback URL

EU, Britain Look To Rules To End “Throwaway Culture”, Make It About ‘Climate Change’, Of Course

By William Teach March 11, 2020 – 4:42 pm

Let’s all be honest, if the doomsday cult didn’t link this to the anthropogenic climate change scam, we’d all agree with it to a degree

Climate change: New rules could spell end of ‘throwaway culture’

New rules could spell the death of a “throwaway” culture in which products are bought, used briefly, then binned.

The regulations will apply to a range of everyday items such as mobile phones, textiles, electronics, batteries, construction and packaging.

They will ensure products are designed and manufactured so they last – and so they’re repairable if they go wrong.

It should mean that your phone lasts longer and proves easier to fix.

That may be especially true if the display or the battery needs changing.

It’s part of a worldwide movement called the Right to Repair, which has spawned citizens’ repair workshops in several UK cities.

The plan is being presented by the European Commission. It’s likely to create standards for the UK, too – even after Brexit.

That’s because it probably won’t be worthwhile for manufacturers to make lower-grade models that can only be sold in Britain.

It’s all part of what one green group is calling the most ambitious and comprehensive proposal ever put forward to reduce the environmental and climate impact of the things we use and wear.

First, this has little to do with ‘climate change’, though, it does tie into the greenhouse gases, particularly methane, released from landfills. Remember, I never said that Mankind has no influence on the climate. We do, both localized and globally, but, not that much. It does have a lot to do with actual environmental impacts, though, which is a whole other debate from ‘climate change’, and I wish the Cult of Climastrology would stop merging the two.

That said, for those who are a bit older, do you remember when products lasted? I have a washer and dryer from 1994 that still work fine (knock wood). I just replaced a 30 inch old school square screen color TV I’ve had since around 1989 with a 19″ flat panel. But not because the TV didn’t work: it did. Just as well as back then. Granted, it rarely gets used since it is in the spare bedroom. But, Best Buy had a deal, $60 for a 19″ 1080p flat panel (doesn’t seem to be on their website anyone, but the sound is fantastic), put my old 19′ 720 in the spare bedroom. BTW, I’ve had that TV for almost 10 years, still works great.

I still have the same JVC receiver with Bose 301 speakers from 1987. Sure, no surround sound, but, don’t need it. And still works great. I have a Creative Zen MP3 player that is around 13 years old, still works. But, do they make things to last much anymore?

When I started in wireless in 1994 the manufacturers talked about their products lasting 10-15 years. Polycarbonate plastic, no wires, etc. They moved on to Lithium Ion batteries, which were supposed to last 20 years. People seemingly need to replace their phones now every 1 1/2 to 2 years, because of planned obsolescence, including the batteries. Do we really need to replace due to a better camera? Or is it because the battery sucks? And it isn’t really replaceable? And it is so often cheaper to replace one, and other products, then get it fixed? I see people with broken screens needing to replace their phones because it causes the rest to suck.

The EU also wants to set a food waste reduction target, end over-packaging, and curb microplastic pollution. Other recommendations under the proposals, known as the Circular Economy Action Plan, are:

  • increasing recycled content in products
  • reducing the impact of products on the climate and environment
  • providing incentives for a new type of consumer use where producers keep the ownership of the product or the responsibility for its performance throughout its lifecycle – similar to car leasing

The idea is to encourage manufacturers to make sure things don’t break – because they’ll have to pick up the bill for repair or replacement.

On one hand, this is a good idea. On the other, it puts Government in charge of the economy and companies in an obscene manner. Taking a light touch would be better. And not linking it to Hotcoldwetdry would be helpful.

Read: EU, Britain Look To Rules To End “Throwaway Culture”, Make It About ‘Climate Change’, Of Course »

Posted in Environment, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 11, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that is soon going to rise dozens of feet because Other People took fossil fueled vacations, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on feminists and selective outrage syndrome.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

A Coronavirus Lockdown Could Be Good For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach March 11, 2020 – 10:30 am

So, now the doomsday Cult Of Climastrology is actively rooting for large numbers of people to get the Wuhan (racism!!!!) virus and even die

Coronavirus Lockdown May Save More Lives By Preventing Pollution Than By Preventing Infection

The global lockdown inspired by the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, has shuttered factories and reduced travel, slashing lethal pollution including the greenhouse gases that are heating the climate.

The lockdown may save more lives from pollution reduction than are threatened by the virus itself, said François Gemenne, director of The Hugo Observatory, which studies the interactions between environmental changes, human migration, and politics.

“Strangely enough, I think the death toll of the coronavirus at the end of the day might be positive, if you consider the deaths from atmospheric pollution,” said Gemenne, citing, for example, the 84,000 people who die annually in France because of atmospheric pollution and the more than one million in China.

A facepalm GIF would seem rather innapropriate after that, eh?

Reductions in air pollution and global heating could save more lives.

“More than likely the number of lives that would be spared because of these confinement measures would be higher than the number of lives that would be lost because of the pandemic,” Gemenne said in an appearance on France 24’s The Debate.

So, see, tons of people getting sick and being stuck at home, along with tons of people stuck at home scared of getting sick, plus tons of people dying is a good thing in Cult of Climastrology world. These are some seriously disturbed people.

“I think this is something that should question us: why are we so much more afraid of the coronavirus than we are of climate change or atmospheric pollution or other kinds of threats. What is so special about the coronavirus that we are ready to put the whole world on lockdown because of that?”

Because it is real, and anthropogenic climate change is a scam.

Read: A Coronavirus Lockdown Could Be Good For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in Climate Ghouls, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Honolulu, A City Which Can’t Survive Without Fossil Fuels, Sues Fossil Fuels Companies

By William Teach March 11, 2020 – 8:28 am

The city of Honolulu, Hawaii, is much like the entire state: it could not survive as a modern city without fossil fuels. It depends on tourism and the military. Being that it is on an island way out in the Pacific Ocean, people are not getting to the city without fossil fueled flights. Those people then require FF vehicles to get around the city and island, as well as FF helicopter flights to sight-see. A goodly chunk of food is brought in on fossil fueled ships, be it fish being caught or everything other than pineapple from the mainland. Construction materials, TVs, glassware, you name it, it has to be brought in by fossil fueled planes or ships. Without fossil fuels, who is coming to Honolulu? So, naturally

Honolulu Sues Petroleum Companies For Climate Change Damages to City

Honolulu city officials, lashing out at the fossil fuel industry in a climate change lawsuit filed Monday, accused oil producers of concealing the dangers that greenhouse gas emissions from petroleum products would create, while reaping billions in profits.

The lawsuit, against eight oil companies, says climate change already is having damaging effects on the city’s coastline, and lays out a litany of catastrophic public nuisances—including sea level rise, heat waves, flooding and drought caused by the burning of fossil fuels—that are costing the city billions, and putting its residents and property at risk.

“We are seeing in real time coastal erosion and the consequences,” Josh Stanbro, chief resilience officer and executive director for the City and County of Honolulu Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency, told InsideClimate News. “It’s an existential threat for what the future looks like for islanders.”

Can you guess what the actual sea level data for Honolulu shows? “The relative sea level trend is 1.51 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.21 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1905 to 2019 which is equivalent to a change of 0.50 feet in 100 years.” The expected sea rise during the Holocene is 6-8 per century, with much higher rate during a warm period. So, this is at the low end of average, and at least half of what one would expect during a warm period. A big part of the lawsuit is over sea rise, so, kinda hard to make that case.

The lawsuit seeks to hold fossil companies, including Exxon, Shell, Chevron and Phillips 66, accountable for the costs and damages caused by misleadingly promoting and selling products that their own scientists and experts warned could impose “severe” or even “catastrophic” consequences.

“This case is about accountability,” Stanbro said during a news conference announcing the lawsuit.

So, when does the city give up its own use of fossil fuels? These companies should refuse to sell their product to the city. Seriously, if someone was suing you, would you provide your service/product to them? The companies should definately refuse to sell to the airport. No planes will come in if they can’t be fueled to fly out.

“Rising seas, rain bombs, stronger hurricanes, and other consequences of climate change are already threatening Oahu and will impact our fiscal health,” said Honolulu City Council Budget Chair Joey Manahan. “Taxpayers should not have to pay for all the steps we will need to take to protect our roads, beaches, homes, and businesses. That should be on the fossil fuel companies who knowingly caused the damage, and as budget chair I believe we should go to court to make them pay their share.”

Nowhere in their suit does it demand that the companies stop selling their product, just that they give the city lots of money.

Read: Honolulu, A City Which Can’t Survive Without Fossil Fuels, Sues Fossil Fuels Companies »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 17 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove