…is produce that is terrible because of all the road miles, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Newsbusters, with a post on NBC whining about Trump taking a victory lap over the killing of ISIS head.
It’s shorts week.
Read: If All You See… »
Happy Sunday! Another fantastic day in America. Getting some much needed rain, Halloween is almost here, and my thumb is down to about a 4 for pain. This pinup is by Greg Huldebrandt, with a wee bit of help.
What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15 (just using headlines, still hard to type)
As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page (nope, that’s gone, the newest Apache killed access, and the program hasn’t been upgraded since 2014). While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets†calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me.
Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!
Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. And do you have a favorite blog you can recommend be added to the feedreader?
Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »
This has fired up the unhinged #Resistance and #NeverTrumpers
67 votes in the Senate could remove President Trump from office. But it would take 2nd, simple-majority vote based on a lesser-known clause of the Constitution to stop him from running again, @Hillhulse writes. https://t.co/YNVf796dKi
— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 27, 2019
Hey, if you can’t beat him at the ballot box under the established rules, right?
(NY Times) With chances rapidly increasing that President Trump will be impeached by the House and tried in the Senate, an intriguing question has reared its head: Could he be ousted only to try to return to the White House in 2020 in a Trumpian bid for redemption and revenge?
Like so much of the coming impeachment showdown, that decision rests entirely with the Senate. The Constitution famously grants senators the sole power to convict and remove a president — something that has never been done. What is seldom discussed is a more obscure clause of the Constitution that allows the Senate discretion to take a second, even more punitive step, to disqualify the person it convicts from holding “any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.â€
Imposing that penalty would effectively bar the president from reclaiming his old job. In an added twist, tacking on the extra punishment requires only a majority vote in the Senate, not the two-thirds — or 67 senators — required to convict.
For now, the idea of disqualifying Mr. Trump is the remotest of hypotheticals, since it would first require the Senate to vote to impeach and remove him. That seems far-fetched, given how little appetite Republicans in the chamber have shown so far for deserting him, despite the flood of damaging revelations that have come forth in the impeachment inquiry. But if nearly two dozen Republicans did vote to impeach him, it would take only a simple majority to banish him from the presidency for life.
The first is not going to happen, so the second is a pipe dream. And that’s what these Trump haters have: pipe dreams. They just can’t control themselves in their virulent hatred. If Trump came out in favor of abortion, assault rifle confiscation, getting rid of fossil fuels, and the Green New Deal, they’d still find a way to oppose him.
“If the impeachment is based on the Ukraine phone call and activity around that, and the idea is that he is improperly using his office to get dirt on his opponent, the remedy to that is to remove him from office,†said Edward B. Foley, an election law authority and constitutional law professor at the Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law. “If the fear is the incumbent can’t fight a fair fight, then disable the candidate’s ability to not wage a fair fight.â€
Politics is all about quid pro quo, about cajoling other politicians, nations, and people, using a stick or carrot. Move on, folks.
Read: NY Times Continues Impeachment Fantasy, Now With A Way To Block A Second Term »
The co-founders of Green New Deal UK, Hannah Martin and Fatima Ibrahim, attempt to spin this as a good thing
How a Green New Deal could transform our lives
How do we move from moments to movements? In the midst of an environmental emergency, the co-founders of Green New Deal UK tell Dazed
As an environmental movement, we can agree there is much to worry about. In the ten years since the original Green New Deal was proposed, there has been no real progress on tackling climate change. In 2019, we are facing a period of huge uncertainty; on the horizon could be a no-deal Brexit, a financial crash or yet another General Election. Yet this is also a period of our history where the opportunities for seismic shifts in public opinion are multiplying and the government are feeling the heat. We’ve seen youth strikes take place almost every month since February and many every week across the UK and organising the largest ever UK climate justice protest in September calling for a Green New Deal as the key solution to this emergency.
Wait, I thought the Paris Climate Agreement was historic? No? Anyway, after a bit of fear-mongering and quibbling and yammering (because they want people to get that they’re doomed unless we Do Something, and our lives will be great if we do, before people tune out), we finally get
Because it is interested not purely in carbon targets but in the flourishing of whole communities, the radical idea of a Green New Deal for the UK could be a positive and unifying answer to these crises. The idea of a Green New Deal saw an enormous surge in support last year when progressive U.S. representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her radical vision for a just transition. But its roots go back deeper. The Green New Deal is a plan first proposed in 2007, as a collective societal mission to transform our economy. It’s an ambitious ten-year national action plan to tackle climate breakdown in a way that improves peoples’ lives and builds a fairer, more democratic society and economy. It would totally decarbonise the economy of the United Kingdom by creating millions of new well-paid, secure, unionised jobs across the country. By overhauling the finance system and surging investment in green industries, it would make sure we provide healthy and fulfilling livelihoods for all workers and communities, including those in high emissions sectors – often those hit hardest by climate crisis.
So, union jobs backed by government force. Overhauling the finance system? How so? From previous yammerings from climate cultists, we know this means a Socialized system where the government controls the economy. “We provide”? That means government is in control of your life.
At the same time a Green New Deal would transform our economy – with greater democratic participation, accountability and common ownership – empowering communities who are currently marginalised. For any climate solution to be truly holistic we must begin to respect natural ecological limits, for example, rewilding and restoring vital habitats and carbon sinks, including forests and wild areas, and ensure the provision of clean water, air and green spaces.
By “common ownership”, that’s cute Soviet style language for “government control”. The 2nd part is more about moving everyone into urban areas from the suburbs and countryside (easier to control and manage people). Think I’m being overboard? This is what decades of watching the Cult of Climastrology would lead you to, as well. They have ulterior motives.
Finally, a Green New Deal would have global justice at its core, supporting all peoples and countries to decarbonise quickly and fairly, in line with timeframes set out by science. The Green New Deal will ensure the UK does its fair share to tackle climate breakdown – and more – to account for historic emissions and the exploitation of resources and communities, particularly those in the Global South.
Are you getting the idea that this isn’t about climate?
Read: A Green New Deal Could Transform Our Lives Or Something »
…is and area being turned to desert from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on the Left coming after the 1st Amendment.
Clearing the last sweater picture under the fold, so also check out Irons In The Fire, with a post on a really cool find.
Read: If All You See… »
Bad news for Democrats. It must have hurt CNN right in the gonads to publish this
Impeachment isn’t popular in Wisconsin and these 5 other key swing states
Poll of the week: A new Marquette University poll from the state of Wisconsin finds that 44% of voters want President Donald Trump impeached and removed from office, while 51% do not want him impeached and removed from office.
What’s the point: A look at the national polls indicate that impeaching and removing Trump from office is at, a minimum, a plurality position. Our CNN/SSRS poll out this week showed that 51% of voters nationwide support impeaching and removing from office compared to 44% who disagreed. The average has the split closer to 48% for impeach and removal and 44% against it.
But as Democrats saw in 2016, presidential elections in the United States are determined via the electoral college, not popular vote. And because Republicans control the Senate and 67 Senate votes are necessary to remove Trump from office, the chance that Trump will be forced to leave the presidency is currently low. In other words, the impeachment saga revolving around Trump remains as much an electoral question as it does a legal one.
Wisconsin, of course, was the most infamous swing state of 2016. It was the tipping point state (i.e. the one that put Trump over the top in the electoral college). When the most accurate pollster in Wisconsin (Marquette) in 2018 reveals that impeaching and removing Trump is not popular, it’s a critical finding.
Importantly, it’s not just this Marquette poll that show that impeaching and remove Trump could be an electoral loser for Democrats (and potential winner for Trump) in the swing states.
Continuing with this sham impeachment schtick, which is simply an extension of their inability to accept that Trump won, could drive voters who refused to vote for Trump last time (but weren’t voting Hillary) to vote for him in 2020
Florida is one of the most important swing states in the nation. Trump won there by only a point in 2016. With 29 electoral votes, Democrats would likely take back the presidency with a win there in 2020. A poll of Florida voters conducted by the University of North Florida out this week shows the divide at 46% in support of impeaching and removing Trump and 48% opposed to it.
Indeed, take an examination of the battleground states that Democrats almost certainly need to make inroads into in 2020. The New York Times and Siena College, 2018’s most accurate pollster, took a poll of voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Arizona. These were closest states in the country that cast their electoral votes for Trump in 2016.
Just 43% of voters in these six states want to impeach and remove from office at this point. The majority, 53%, do not. This means that the margin for not impeaching and removing Trump in these states (+10 points) is running well ahead of Trump’s margin in these states of about 1.5 points. Put another way, impeaching and removing Trump from office in these states is not a popular position.
Go for it, Democrats. It will backfire.
Most of them prefer that you, the peons, be forced to not use fossil fuels
Each of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates has a slogan. The one for Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., is “for the people.” Former Vice President Joe Biden says, “Our best days still lie ahead.” Former Texas Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke plays it cool with slang: “It’s Gonna Take All of Us.”
Clearly the polls say Americans want to feel like they are part of the team. Inclusive. A musical montage from a teen movie where everyone chips in and they save the day. But don’t be fooled: These candidates are not like you, and the policies they support are actually bad for regular Americans. In fact, their slogans should all be the same: “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Nowhere is this more obvious than when it comes to being green.
As part of their required Federal Election Commission quarterly filings, the candidates disclosed how their finances and each campaign have been spending a lot of money on private jet travel. After all, how else does one get from Iowa to New Hampshire? In coach? Taking off shoes at TSA? With campaign donations picking up the tab, private jets make the campaign trail much better.
For a collective group of Democrats who decry fossil fuels, who embrace the radical Green New Deal, who demand we change our habits and diets to reflect the “existential crisis†of climate change, they sure don’t put their campaign money with their mouth is.
Every one of the 2020 candidates supports the Green New Deal (GND) as part of their campaign, and as a reminder, this radical, socialist proposal of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seeks to make air travel “obsolete.” Air travel is such a no-no amongst environmentalists that “flight shaming” has become a common tactic the green radicals use.
So, why do these candidates get a pass? If they want us to stop flying commercial, why are they justified in flying private?
In reality, it’s not just the presidential contenders, but most of the Democrats, almost all of whom are Warmists. How about the 95 cosponsors in the House? How many travel using fossil fuels?
The Buttigieg campaign said it needs private jets because South Bend isn’t convenient to campaign stops and the mayor has a vigorous schedule. Here’s a question for Mayor Pete: If I live in rural America and am busy, can I get an exemption under the Green New Deal you support?
We all know the answer to that question, plebeian.
Warmists always have an excuse for their climahypocrisy.
What happens when the Green New Deal does make air travel “obsolete” and the 10 million American jobs in the airline industry are lost? What happens when Sanders gets his wish to make fracking illegal by executive order and consequently half our oil and two-thirds our gas comes off the market?
I’ll tell you what happens: You won’t fly home for Christmas. You won’t buy fruit in winter. Cold weather and athletic clothing with lycra and Core-Tex and nylon won’t be affordable. Food prices will skyrocket. Shipping costs will make European goods unaffordable, and speaking of Europe, forget about going. You can’t afford it, because with oil around $200 a barrel, even a cruise is out of the question.
You can bet that all the people who support this anti-fossil fuels push will be Shocked, Shocked! that this has happened.
Read: Democrats Love The Green New Deal (And Using Lots Of Fossil Fuels) »
Trackback URL
Remember, the Open Borders advocates tell us that they don’t want the bad ones, just the good ones
(Breitbart) During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official Timothy Robbins said that anywhere between 40 to 80 percent of criminal illegal aliens who are released by sanctuary jurisdictions go on to commit more crime.
“When aliens walk out the front of the jail that could have been handed over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for removal proceedings, they have the opportunity to commit additional crimes,†Robbins said. “What we’ve seen, and depending on the report you look at, anywhere from 40 to 80 percent of those who have committed crimes will re-offend.â€
“In that regard, what we’re seeing is crimes that could be preventable, the human cost who are being victimized and hurt by criminal aliens that ICE had the ability to remove from this country,†Robbins said.
The data indicates that up to 80 percent of crimes committed be sanctuary-freed illegal aliens could have been prevented if those suspects had been turned over to ICE for arrest and deportation.
But, they’re all low level offenders, who are only committing DUI and stuff, right?
In June, a 35-year-old illegal alien was given only 12 months in prison for raping a disabled woman in the sanctuary county of King County, Washington. Immediately after his release from prison, the illegal alien allegedly hunted down his rape victim and attacked her, as Breitbart News reported, and he remains wanted by police.
Obviously, the Open Borders advocates will say that legal U.S. citizens may do the same when they are released from prison. Well, yes. But, they are our citizens. Not people who shouldn’t be here in the first place, and ones we could 100% keep from committing crimes again in the United States if they were handed over to ICE and straight deported. And, consider that the latest thing by sanctuary jurisdictions is to give much shorter sentences after being charged with lesser crimes in order to avoid getting on ICE’s radar.
OK, that last one wasn’t about releasing a criminal offender, just another we knew shouldn’t be here.
BTW, remember the Kansas City shooting Beto O’Rourke freaked about? The two men who did it were both illegal aliens.
Read: 40 To 80% Of Illegals Released By Sanctuary Jurisdictions Commit More Crimes »
Chuck Schumer has a plan
So, Chuck, what kind of car do you drive? How about your staff and Dem colleagues?
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) October 25, 2019
I don’t feel like giving the NY Times a hit, so
(WRAL) Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is moving Democrats’ climate talk to where the rubber meets the road, proposing a $462 billion trade-in program to get millions of Americans out of climate-damaging gas vehicles and into electric or hybrid cars over the next decade.
Schumer’s rebate proposal late Thursday joins a mix of trillion- and multitrillion-dollar programs that Democratic presidential candidates have outlined to urgently cut oil, gas and coal emissions, as climate change weighs as an issue in the 2020 campaigns.
Schumer said the “proposal to bring clean cars to all of America” would be a key part of climate legislation by Senate Democrats. The injection of government-supported spending for electric cars “could position the U.S. to lead the world in clean auto manufacturing,” he said.
The New York Democrat’s plan would give American car buyers thousands of dollars each to trade in gas-burning cars for U.S.-assembled electric, hybrid or hydrogen cell cars. Lower-income households, and buyers of cars with American-made parts, would get extra credits.
About $45 billion would go to boost availability of charging stations and other electric car infrastructure. And $17 billion would help automakers increase their production of electric cars, batteries and parts.
One thing Chuck forgot? How this will be paid for. Realistically, I have no problem with offering tax credits, and even expanding them for hybrids that are no longer eligible. What a lot of people do not know is that once so many of a model have been sold credits are no longer offer, such as the Prius or Accord Hybrid. That would probably be the best way to go.
But, people aren’t really all that interested in practice in buying hybrids, not when sedans and even compact SUVs can get pretty decent mileage. I get about 29+ in my Accord Sport (most of my driving is around town). But, look, a top end Civic, the Touring, gets 30 city/38 highway and goes for $28,220, and has 174 horsepower. An Insight Touring (I’m using this because it is essentially a Civic hybrid) gets 51 city/45 highway, but only 151hp, for $29,110. And has a few less features. And that price difference is closer than most (can’t compare Accord to hybrid Accord, very different engines) vehicle lines.
Toyota just came out with a hybrid RAV4 and Honda is coming out with a hybrid CRV early 2020. Will they sell? Good question. There’s a lot of interest, but, interest doesn’t equate to sales. People were very interested in the plugin Clarity, but, sales were dismal, even in California, after the initial quick sales.
I do like hybrids, I would have been interested in the Insight EX had it leased well, and that is another big problem. The cost differential is worth it if you drive a lot more than average, are going to keep it a long time, or going to lease it. But, hybrids have poor residual values (what the car is worth after 36 months and 60 months, as measured), so, leasing is only worth it IF there is massive backend money. A lot of what creates a residual is what people feel it is worth. If I say “Jaguar” you think “I need 2, because one is always in the shop.” Even though they are much more reliable, they can’t shake the reputation, hence, not worth as much for the residual. People fear hybrid/electric batteries dying by 100K miles, so, market value is lower than it should be. In reality, the batteries, at least in true hybrids, should give you 200-300K miles before replacing. But, people’s feelings aren’t changing at this time.
Oh, and when will Chuck switch his own vehicle to a hybrid?
Read: Who’s Up For Los Federales Giving $462 Billion To Swap Fossil Fueled Vehicles For Electric? »
… is wine which will soon disappear from climate change, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post on the coming FISA abuse report.
Read: If All You See… »
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.