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

If All You See…

By William Teach November 13, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is the thought of maple syrup disappearing due to ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is hogewash, with a post on Democrats wanting to hide their impeachment votes.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 26 Comments | Trackback URL

We’re Saved: California To Spend $2.4 Million On Climate Art

By William Teach November 13, 2019 – 10:30 am

Not just any art, but permanent art!

California Is Spending $2.4 Million to Build the World’s Largest Permanent Installation of Climate Change-Themed Art

California’s clean-air agency has commissioned the world’s largest permanent public installation of climate changed-themed art. Large-scale works by Allora & Calzadilla, Refik Anadol, Kameelah Janan Rasheed, Noé Montes, Andrea Polli, and Tomás Saraceno will appear in the common areas of the California Air Resources Board’s new headquarters in Riverside, California, opening in late 2021.

The agency went through 600 applications before it made its selection of “world-class art by artists whose work embraces environmental and equity themes,” said board chair Mary Nichol in a statement. The works themselves will be announced in 2020.

“The conversation about climate change should always include the subject of climate justice,” artist Noe Montes said in an email. The photographer was inspired to apply for the project after witnessing the health problems experienced by residents in the Jordan Downs housing project in South Los Angeles due to air pollution from the logistics industry.

“Climate change affects marginalized, low income communities first and disproportionately,” he added. “My work will help to illustrate this fact through the stories of residents who are the most impacted.”

Well, that’s interesting that the “marginalized, low income communities” would be mentioned. $2.4 million might not seem that much in terms of government spending, but, in the real world, how many of California’s ever-growing homeless population could be fed and housed with that money?

That’s just one shot of California. Yet, they’re creating ‘climate change’ art.

Dedicated to combating the effects of air pollution and creating programs that fight climate change, the California Air Resources Board sets the state’s air quality standards and promotes efforts to reduce emissions. The new headquarters, being constructed through the $368 million Southern California Consolidation project, will feature a vehicle emissions testing and research facility on a 19-acre campus. It aims to be the largest true zero net energy facility of its type, and will give off zero emissions.

Think how they could help with $368 million.

Read: We’re Saved: California To Spend $2.4 Million On Climate Art »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on We’re Saved: California To Spend $2.4 Million On Climate Art | Trackback URL

Climate Cultists Vow Hunger Strikes Unless Pelosi Does Something Or Something

By William Teach November 13, 2019 – 8:02 am

Good, more bacon, steak, pork, chicken, chocolate, and all the other foods Warmists claim are bad for ‘climate change’ for the rest of us

Protesters vow hunger strike to push U.S. on climate change

Climate change opponents plan to stage a hunger strike to demand a meeting with U.S. Congressional leader Nancy Pelosi, they said on Tuesday, in the political battle over global warming.

The protesters said they want a one-hour on-camera meeting with Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to discuss reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2025.

“You have yet to pass even symbolic legislation recognizing the climate crisis as a national emergency. With all due respect, you have failed,” they said in an open letter.

“Meet with us or leave us to starve while you jet to your Thanksgiving feasts and cocktail parties in the glow of a burning world.”

Well, good luck with this. I don’t think Pelosi cares. They could have voted on the Green New Deal resolution, which was purely symbolic. They didn’t. Heck, Democrats blew a gasket over Mitch McConnell holding a vote on the GND in the Senate, and none voted for it. Even Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has mostly given up on tweeting about it.

(Pelosi) has resisted a Congressional resolution called the Green New Deal backed by progressives that seeks a 10-year, government-driven effort to promote clean energy and make the nation carbon-neutral by 2030.

Pelosi has said she welcomes the “enthusiasm” behind the Green New Deal but in an interview with Politico, an online news site, called it a “green dream.”

No matter what you say about Pelosi, she is no idiot. She sees the polls and knows that pushing ‘climate change’ may be popular in theory, but not in practice. She knows that passing, or at least attempting to pass legislation would hurt Democrat chances in 2020. You can bet that once the Democrat primaries are done that ‘climate change’ will mostly disappear from their campaigns, just like it has in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, and 2000.

The protesters said they will launch a week-long hunger strike on November 18, 10 days before the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, at Pelosi’s Washington offices, elsewhere in the United States and in other countries. They are part of Extinction Rebellion, a grassroots green movement launched in London in 2018.

This should be fun. Will they be super-gluing themselves to stuff? The optics will not be good for the climate cultists.

Read: Climate Cultists Vow Hunger Strikes Unless Pelosi Does Something Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Barking Moonbats, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove