If All You See…

By William Teach November 15, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…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… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

We’re Saved: Dutch Gov’t Slashes Speed Limits To Stop Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach November 15, 2019 – 10:30 am

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 »

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

Comrade Bernie, AOC Release Green New Deal For Public Housing

By William Teach November 15, 2019 – 7:12 am

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.”(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.”

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.”

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 »

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

New Democrat Narrative: Ukraine Was About An Attempted Crime, Not A Crime Crime

By William Teach November 15, 2019 – 6:51 am

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.”

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?”

“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.

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 »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump | 41 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Gun Grabbers Want To Come After Your Ammo To Make Your Firearm Worthless

By William Teach November 14, 2019 – 4:54 pm

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 »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 14, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible, evil, no good assault rifle which is only owned by evil, horrible, no good climate deniers, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The H2, with a post on Thursblah.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Could Cause More Winter Weather In Texas And Alabama Or Something

By William Teach November 14, 2019 – 10:30 am

Your pre-winter reminder from the Cult of Climastrology that greenhouse gases from your fossil fueled vehicle and modern lifestyle which are over-heating the planet also cause cold, snow, and ice

Snow in Texas and ice in Alabama? Unusual cold weather could become more common

This week, temperatures are expected to hit historic lows across much of North America. Already, it has snowed in Texas and frozen in Tennessee, and hundreds of towns and cities are preparing for icy cold weather.

This week’s cold snap isn’t exactly unseasonal—after all, it’s autumn, heading toward winter, and it’s the time of year when much of North America sinks into chilly weather.

Some scientists think, though, that the frequency and intensity of these kinds of cold interludes may be changing as the planet warms, as counterintuitive as that might sound.

“This Arctic outbreak is connected to the behavior of the jet stream and the polar vortex,” says Judah Cohen, an atmospheric scientist at MIT. And those, in turn, are affected by a changing climate—mostly by intense warming in the high Arctic.

You know it’s a cult, a pseudo-religion, when everything proves them correct, and they will find ways to say that everything proves their cult correct. I tell you, though, it must have been super hot during the last ice age, right?

The overall message, though, is clear: the planet is heating up, and the weather patterns to which humans have become accustomed will continue to shift and change.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Cause More Winter Weather In Texas And Alabama Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

We Can Cut U.S. Carbon Pollution 40% In 10 Years With A Tax Or Something

By William Teach November 14, 2019 – 7:33 am

And it is totally bipartisan, you guys!

How to Cut U.S. Carbon Pollution by Nearly 40 Percent in 10 Years

In Washington, the immaculate solution to climate change has a name: a bipartisan, revenue-neutral carbon tax.

The idea should have wide appeal. Under the plan, the government would charge companies for every ton of greenhouse gas they emit. Instead of spending that money, the government would immediately send it back to Americans as a tax cut or check. Over time, Americans would make greener choices (a win for Democrats) without growing the size of the government (a win for Republicans). And so climate change would slow (a win for everyone).

The research is promising. Last week, a study from economists at Columbia University found that the tax plan with the most support in Congress would slash American carbon pollution by almost 40 percent within a decade. It would outperform any Obama-era climate policy and go well beyond the United States’ 2015 commitment under the Paris Agreement.

There’s only one hitch: the politics. There is a popular, revenue-neutral carbon-tax bill in Congress, but it is only “bipartisan” on a technicality. Dozens of Democrats support the plan. Its sole GOP backer is planning to leave politics.

So…….not so bipartisan?

That bill is the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA), the subject of the recent Columbia analysis. Of its 71 co-sponsors, 70 are Democrats. Representative Francis Rooney of Florida, its only Republican co-sponsor, said in October that he would retire from Congress after the current term. His announcement came several days after he refused to rule out voting to impeach President Donald Trump. (He says the two events are unrelated.)

Is anyone shocked that Democrats are super excited about a tax? Let’s be clear, again, how this type works. Certain industries will be hit with carbon taxes, and this will cause the cost of living of citizens to skyrocket. The federal government totally promises to “refund” a portion of that rise, usually the number is 4/5ths, back to citizens from what is gained from the taxes. So, the problem that government creates they will partially solve, thereby making citizens more dependent for money from the very government that caused the problem.

The article, and the study, attempt to downplay the skyrocketing cost of living

There is one big benefit associated with high taxes: bigger checks. In 2020, every adult with a Social Security number would receive a monthly check for $50, the study projects. But after a decade, those same checks would come to roughly $275 a month, or $3,300 a year. Children with a Social Security number would receive a check half that size.

And while household energy costs would also rise under the plan, they would not grow as quickly as the checks. Most families would come out ahead. “It’s a very progressive policy, because rich people spend so much more in aggregate terms on energy than lower-income people,” Kaufman said.

That’s all great in theory, but, in practice, we know that the costs will exceed the checks, because higher energy costs and the cost of those taxes will drastically increase the cost of living well beyond those checks, and you know that government is not going to give up all that money. And, it will mean mass layoffs, people out of work, and so much more. How many businesses just leave? This is what has happened in California.

Yet look around and you’ll notice: The idea has faltered in practice. There’s still not an economy-wide carbon tax in the United States. Washington State has twice rejected a carbon tax by ballot referendum. And the “yellow vest” protests in France have been blamed on increases in fuel taxes.

That’s right, in far left Washington the taxes were shot down twice, and their governor, Jay Inslee, obtained exactly zero traction while running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination with ‘climate change’ as his almost only focus. Few really care in practice. Remember, almost 70% say they will not pay even $10 a month to “solve” Hotcoldwetdry.

Read: We Can Cut U.S. Carbon Pollution 40% In 10 Years With A Tax Or Something »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Democrats, Global Warming, Taxation | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

AOC Explains That Impeachment Is About Defeating Trump In 2020

By William Teach November 14, 2019 – 7:16 am

This isn’t really surprising, though, as we all know that this whole thing is the Democrats Trump Derangement Syndrome going back to when they were calling for Trump to be impeached as soon as he won the election. It’s just an extension of Russia Russia Russia.

AOC: Impeachment ‘About Preventing a Potentially Disastrous Outcome from Occurring Next Year’

On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “The Situation Room,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said today’s public hearing in the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump was ”not just about something that has occurred.”

She said it was instead “about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year.”

Ocasio-Cortez said, “The whole point of the public hearings is to present the facts to the public and let the general public see the facts for themselves and understand why we have chosen to move forward with the impeachment inquiry. What we heard today was astounding and devastating news for the president and anyone in the administration, really partaking. Frankly, this is devastating for the country. Our national security has been compromised, our elections potentially compromised. I think right now what Republicans have to do is decide what their role is going to be in the scope of history. We will look back at this time and really truly examine the moral decisions each member of Congress decided to make.” (snip)

She added, “I’d like to remind everyone, one of the initial people who brought this conversation of quid pro quo into this conversation was the president. It was when these allegations first came out about Ukraine, he started tweeting and frankly raising the bar saying, ‘No quid pro quo, no quid pro quo.’ It wasn’t Democrats that set that bar, because you don’t need quid pro quo. He met it, all of that aside, we’re focused on him using the power of the United States government to engage in extortion of a foreign government in order to intervene in our elections. I think that’s our message, the fact he undermined national security, that he is trying to undermine an election, he is engaged in flagrant abuse of power should be a concern to all Americans who believe in rule of law in the United States of America.”

She concluded, “We also need to move quite quickly because we’re talking about the potential compromise of the 2020 elections. And so this is not just about something that has occurred; this is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year.”

Interesting. Democrats have been saying for years that they wanted to stop outside interference in our elections (not going to happen. We interfere in the elections of other nations, they interfere in ours, welcome to the world, Dems) and wanted to get to the heart of what happened in 2016. Well, Trump was trying to find out what happened. And Ukraine was a central player. Why is it only OK to investigate Trump and his team? When will we get the investigations into the Obama administration spying on presidential candidate Donald Trump and his campaign, then on president-elect Donald Trump and his team?

But, anyone, per AOC, this whole impeachment theater is about damaging Trump for the 2020 elections, essentially using a very serious measure in the U.S. Constitution to attempt to change the outcome of the election. We all know this, she’s just letting the cat out of the bag.

Seriously, impeachment theater was pretty bad on day 1

When your main witnesses on day 1 were actually not witnesses, good luck!

Read: AOC Explains That Impeachment Is About Defeating Trump In 2020 »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Virginia Commission Fails To Come Up With Recommendations On 78 Gun Control Bills

By William Teach November 13, 2019 – 2:38 pm

Reading between the lines, this pretty much shows that all the gun grabber bills won’t do anything to stop crime, and no one wanted to put their signature behind gun grabbing bills

A state commission spent months reviewing Virginia’s gun laws. It came up with no recommendations.

Citing “inconclusive evidence,” a state group tasked with studying gun policy says it can’t give any recommendations on what to do with the 78 bills it received.

In a three-page report released Tuesday, the Virginia State Crime Commission staff outlined its review of the legislation filed during the July special session on gun control called by Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, following the Virginia Beach mass shooting.

“While staff researched a wide variety of policies and many other matters related to gun violence, the overall findings from the research were often insufficient, mixed, contradictory, or based on limited methodology,” staff wrote.

Review of the legislation fell into the commission’s hands after Republicans ended the special session without voting on any bills.

“We are confident that, under your leadership, the Crime Commission will be able to better understand what steps Virginia might take to keep our communities safe without the distraction of partisan politics,” Speaker of the House Kirk Cox and Sen. Tommy Norment wrote to the chairman and vice chairman of the commission in July when they asked for the review.

Well, the commission was unable to put themselves behind any of those 78 bills. If the idea was to reduce crime, didn’t seem to work. But, then, we know most of the bills offered up end up punishing the law abiding, rather than actual criminals. Because Democrats are afraid to go after their constituents who are criminals. Or is it that they just like the criminals, much like we see in places like San Francisco? Regardless, Democrats are about gun grabbing, not stopping crime. Hence, the commission tried to sugar coat their conclusions.

Read: Virginia Commission Fails To Come Up With Recommendations On 78 Gun Control Bills »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove