Cult: Most Germans Fine With Doing Away With Christmas Lights Due To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach December 8, 2019 – 5:33 pm

Of course, the same poll should have asked if the respondants were willing to give up their use of fossil fuels, washing machines, ice makers, hair dryers,and smartphones, among others, and would make their own clothes and grow their own food

Climate change: Majority of Germans support ditching Christmas lights

A majority of Germans say they would consider scaling down their Christmas lights to protect the climate, a survey released on Sunday said. A total of 57% of those surveyed said they would reduce Christmas lighting or even do without it in the future, according to the survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of the German news agency DPA.

Of the respondents, 11% said they would make do without any lights this year due to climate concerns, while 10% said they would do so in the future. But 35% said turning off the lights was not an option for them.

Opinion is split on whether there should be fewer lights on buildings and in the streets in general, with 44% both for and against the idea. Having lights up during the festive season is appreciated by a large majority of 79% in Germany. Almost seven out of 10 people surveyed plan to decorate their homes with electric Christmas lights this year.

See, they would consider it. In the future. But, not now.

Christmas lights are a common feature during the festival season every year, with the lights wrapped around homes, streets and trees. But scientists have warned that the lighting does have an environmental cost.

But, the article provides nothing to back that up, not even a link.

Read: Cult: Most Germans Fine With Doing Away With Christmas Lights Due To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Cult: Most Germans Fine With Doing Away With Christmas Lights Due To ‘Climate Change’ | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 8, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible heat snow from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is DC Clothesline, with a post on village idiot AOC not understanding that 25,000 is greater than 1,500

It’s flannel week!

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach December 8, 2019 – 9:30 am

Patriotic Pinup Joyce Ballentyne

Happy Sunday! Yet another fantastic day in America. The sun is shining, the birds are singing, and my NJ Devils are working to obtain the 1st pick in next year’s draft. This pinup is by Joyce Ballentyne, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Climate Change Dispatch notes a school banning Christmas cards over ‘climate change’
  2. Jo Nova asks what you call it when the government turns off your air conditioning
  3. Adrienne’s Corner wonders about Conservatives also living in a bubble
  4. Blazing Cat Fur covers Japan telling the Pope to pound sound on taking in refugees
  5. Chicks On The Right notes that Melania’s clothes are not a secret code
  6. Creeping Sharia discusses a Montreal cop suspended for “insulting” a Muslim man
  7. Doug Ross @ Journal has Dem superstars impeachment daily update
  8. Geller Report News notes Rashida Tlaib wearing a terrorist symbol on House floor while opposing existence of Israel
  9. hogewash features some awesome photos from space
  10. Jihad Watch notes a bystander getting fined after a Muslim says that Arabs are here to take over Sweden
  11. Legal Insurrection discusses the reality of the food stamp rules
  12. Maggie’s Farm says that NATO no longer serves America’s interests
  13. Moonbattery covers Bloomberg declaring war on lawful gun owners
  14. neo-neocon discusses Salt-Shakergate
  15. And last, but not least, Pacific Pundit notes Twitter scrubbing the Pensacola terrorist attackers tweets

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 »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

#TDS: House Report Says Trump Can Be Impeached For “Motives”

By William Teach December 8, 2019 – 8:20 am

Democrats have been talking about impeaching Trump even before he was elected. That talk increased heavily the minute he was elected. And even more when he took office

Those are from inauguration day, and neither attempted to shoot down the unhinged nutters pushing it. Democrats have been looking for any excuse, and now

House Judiciary Committee Report: President Can Be Impeached for ‘Motives’ Without Breaking Law

The House Judiciary Committee released a report Saturday in which it argued that a president may be impeached for “illegitimate motives” even if his actions are “legally permissible.”

The 52-page report, written by 20 members of the staff for the Democratic majority, attempts to provide a legal and constitutional basis for the Democrats’ ongoing effort to impeach the president.

The report states: “The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate.”

So, Democrats are mind readers, now? They know what Trump’s “real reasons” are? Nutballs.

The Breitbart article also notes 11 questionable features of the report, such as not using the testimony of their “legal scholars” from the other day, suggesting the report was already written. And

3. The report invents an absurdly broad standard for “bribery.” The report, backed by selective and misleading claims about the Framers’ intent, declares: “Impeachable bribery occurs when the President offers, solicits, or accepts something of personal value to influence his own official actions.” That standard would implicate every elected official in the United States, all of whom accept campaign contributions in return for policy promises.

Exactly.

4. The report cites radical left-wing activists committed to impeaching Trump. The report cites “scholars” such as Zephyr Teachout, who is on the advisory board of a group called “Impeach Trump Now.” It also cites Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe, who declared in December 2016 that Trump’s impeachment should “begin on Inauguration Day.” It ignores contrary views, even by left-wing sources like Cass Sunstein, whom it quotes selectively (see below).

Both of those headlines at the top are explicitly citing the Impeach Trump Now group.

7. The report bends over backwards to justify impeachment without any crime being committed. The report spends a great deal of space arguing that a president does not have to commit an actual crime to be impeached — a claim hotly debated among scholars. It notes that previous impeachments have included charges of “non-criminal” acts, but ignores the fact that no presidential impeachment has ever proceeded without any criminal acts alleged.

Congratulations on winning the 2020 election, Mr. Trump.

Read: #TDS: House Report Says Trump Can Be Impeached For “Motives” »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | 37 Comments | Trackback URL

Lilly White Sunrise Movement Holds Protest In Durham With Santa

By William Teach December 7, 2019 – 4:21 pm

It’s long been known that the ‘climate change’ movement has a race problem, mostly being that few other than white, privileged middle and upper class folks care. And, if you check the video at the link, you’ll see a sea of white faces in a city that is almost 40% black

Young, old and Santa march in downtown Durham for action on climate change

Hundreds of mostly young people took to the streets in Durham Friday, saying they can’t wait for politicians to fight climate change.

“Take a second to look around you and see how many people are ready to stand up and fight for a Green New Deal,” Georgette Sordellini said from a small platform in Durham Central Park.

Behind her, a banner read “Sunrise Movement.” In front of her, more than 200 residents of Durham and Chapel Hill, were gathered to protest government’s failure to respond to climate change.

While it was labeled a youth climate strike, the protesters ranged from elementary children all the way up. One sign in the back of the crowd read, “We can be our grandchildren’s’ heroes.”

Why weren’t they in school?

Speakers gave remarks about being Native Americans and respecting the land, racial equity in the climate-change conversation and investing in regenerative farming. Elijah King from Riverside High School in Durham, evoked a quote from former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, “Only all that we love is on the line.”

While each speaker brought a different perspective to the protest, there was a main focus of the event: The Green New Deal.

Yeah, the Extinction Rebellion nutters where present, and pretty darned white.

They also plan on creating citizen councils through local government, which Pentecost said would remove lobbying money and campaigning from the process. The group plans on using “non-violent civil disobedience,” including sit-ins and shutting down roads to get its message across.

So, lots of government is the goal, especially to stop the Free Speech protections, under the US and NC Constitutions, of those who oppose them.

As the group marched through downtown, people banged drums and played guitars. A man in a Santa Claus suit chanted with the crowd, “No more coal! No more oil! Keep our carbon in the soil!” while holding a sign that read “Santa says coal is naughty.”

Right, right, so, all the kiddies are willing to forgo all their Christmas presents and such, right?

Read: Lilly White Sunrise Movement Holds Protest In Durham With Santa »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 7, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean devoid of oxygen because someone else ate a burger, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Always On Watch, with a post on democracy dying with hate speech laws.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Democrats Look To Strip Online Free Speech Protections From Trade Deal

By William Teach December 7, 2019 – 10:53 am

Democrats have long had a problem with this whole “free speech online” thing, because it makes it harder to control people and make sure that they only hear and see what the Leftists want. Hence, the push for Net Neutrality

Pelosi Reportedly Wants To Strip Online Free Speech Protections From Trade Deal

The new trade pact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico is a mixed bag, but one of its undeniably excellent components is a provision that effectively exports American protections for online free speech to other countries.

But Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) is reportedly pushing to cut that language from the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) before Congress votes on the new trade deal. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier today that Pelosi is considering removing the liability protections for online platforms from the trade deal because including that language might make it more difficult for lawmakers to hack away at those same protections domestically.

“There are concerns in the House about enshrining the increasingly controversial…liability shield in our trade agreements, particularly at a time when Congress is considering whether changes need to be made in U.S. law,” a spokesman for Pelosi told the Journal.

As I’ve written before, the USMCA—as well as a new trade deal between the U.S. and Japan—will include provisions shielding tech companies from liability for content, similar to the protections offered by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Though it’s not a simple copy/paste, the trade deals effectively duplicate Section 230’s promise that platforms will not be held liable for user-created content—like videos posted to YouTube or comments made at the bottom of this article.

This matters because Section 230 is basically the internet’s First Amendment. Putting that language into trade deals would allow online platforms doing business across North America to operate under the same legal standard, and would help establish that standard on the wider web. There are already competing legal frameworks out there—the European Union, for example, requires online firms to abide by more stringent regulations, and there is nothing free or open about China’s online space. Those differing legal frameworks for the digital world are inevitably going to clash with one another, and binding together governments to protect free speech online makes a lot of sense.

Pelosi seems to be going for the Angela Merkel approach where free speech must be limited to maintain a free society.

Read: Democrats Look To Strip Online Free Speech Protections From Trade Deal »

Posted in Democrats, Queen Nancy, Web/Tech | Comments Off on Democrats Look To Strip Online Free Speech Protections From Trade Deal | Trackback URL

Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Group Finds That Oceans Are Losing Oxygen

By William Teach December 7, 2019 – 7:32 am

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has a big new blockbuster we’re totally doomed “study” out just in time for the latest UN IPCC working vacation in Madrid, and, of course, the compliant media is running the stories without question

Climate change: Oceans running out of oxygen as temperatures rise

Climate change and nutrient pollution are driving the oxygen from our oceans, and threatening many species of fish.

That’s the conclusion of the biggest study of its kind, undertaken by conservation group IUCN.

While nutrient run-off has been known for decades, researchers say that climate change is making the lack of oxygen worse.

Around 700 ocean sites are now suffering from low oxygen, compared with 45 in the 1960s.

Researchers say the depletion is threatening species including tuna, marlin and sharks.

Wait, did they say nutrients?

The threat to oceans from nutrient run-off of chemicals such as nitrogen and phosphorus from farms and industry has long been known to impact the levels of oxygen in the sea waters and still remains the primary factor, especially closer to coasts.

Hence why so many of these sites are near shore. But, hey, this is still your fault for getting that giant flatscreen TV and binge watching shows

However, in recent years the threat from climate change has increased.

As more carbon dioxide is released enhancing the greenhouse effect, much of the heat is absorbed by the oceans. In turn, this warmer water can hold less oxygen. The scientists estimate that between 1960 and 2010, the amount of the gas dissolved in the oceans declined by 2%.

That may not seem like much as it is a global average, but in some tropical locations the loss can range up to 40%.

One has to wonder how sea life survived prior to the Industrial Revolution and the fossil fueled vehicle, you know, when seas were much higher and the oceans much, much warmer. And how they survived in the tropics where the water temperature has always been warmer.

The sad part is that this (highly activist) report actually has some good points about pollution from land pollution runoff, including nitrogen from fossil fueled vehicles, plastic pollution, farm runoff, and other pollution, things that are an actual issue, but, spends the balance of time focusing on Hotcoldwetdry.

But, hey, the Cult of Climastrology needs its apocalyptic talk to stay relevant.

Read: Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Group Finds That Oceans Are Losing Oxygen »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 42 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Appears To Want To Blame Trump For Iranian Repression

By William Teach December 7, 2019 – 7:10 am

This is one of those editorial pieces where one would say “how would they have written this about Barack Obama?”

Iran’s repression of protests was an answer to the Trump administration

THE TRUMP administration has been citing a massive wave of protests in Iran as evidence that its “maximum pressure” strategy against the Islamic republic is working. In one sense, that’s probably true. Sanctions against Iranian oil exports helped force the regime to raise gasoline prices by 50 percent or more on Nov. 15, which in turn triggered, by the government’s own account, demonstrations by up to 200,000 people in 29 of the country’s 31 provinces, including attacks on 50 military bases. That could be the biggest popular rebellion since the overthrow of the shah 40 years ago.

The regime responded with brutal and uncompromising repression. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces gunned down protesters, in at least one case with machine gun fire. According to Amnesty International, at least 208 people were killed in less than a week, and the real figure could be far higher. The Trump administration claims it could be more than 1,000.

The carnage was likely the result of the regime’s conviction that it needed to prove it was not vulnerable to collapse. “Iranian officials have noted . . . that the speed with which they were able to quiet the streets, regardless of the cost, should demonstrate to Washington that they are in full control,” said a report this week by the International Crisis Group. It remains to be seen whether the unrest really has been quelled — there were reports of new protests in recent days — and, if so, for how long.

But if President Trump’s objectives are, as he says, to force Iran to renegotiate the nuclear deal he scrapped and prevent further aggression against its neighbors, “maximum pressure” is not working . The Crisis Group report says it’s possible that, despite its rhetoric, the regime has been so shaken by the protests that it will look for a way to settle with the United States. If so, an avenue is open: Earlier this year, French President Emmanuel Macron appeared close to persuading Mr. Trump, if not Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to consider an accord under which Iran would resume observance of the nuclear deal’s terms and agree to renegotiate some of them in exchange for sanctions relief.

So, the brutal theocratic dictatorship, based on hardcore Islamist doctrine, is cracking down and the Washington Post Editorial Board seems to want to aim its blame at Trump and his team? Really?

Hard-liners in the administration, such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, clearly hope that the protests are a sign that U.S. pressure will trigger revolution and regime change in Tehran. Though that might be a desirable outcome, history as well as the events of the past month suggest it remains unlikely. The administration would be wiser to use this moment of Iranian weakness to offer a path of de-escalation.

Really. The screed could easily have been titled “The Iranian Government Is Really Mean But OMG Orange Man Bad.” Does anyone think that Obama would have been supported and the ire of the article aimed at the Iranian leaders if the PBO was still in office? Or, heck, Hillary in office? Just another case of the hardcore leftist media bias.

Read: Washington Post Appears To Want To Blame Trump For Iranian Repression »

Posted in Donald Trump, Iran, Wonky Media | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Trump Is Trying To Make It Took Expensive For Illegals And Moochers To Stay In U.S.

By William Teach December 6, 2019 – 3:00 pm

Obviously, bleeding heart (but not wallet) Democrats will be very upset about this. Of course, they never seem to pony up the money themselves

Trump is trying to make it too expensive for poor American immigrants to stay

Many of the immigration policies enacted by the administration of US president Donald Trump in the last year have been so shocking they’ve made headlines worldwide: family separation, zero tolerance, detained children, to name a few.

But not all of Trump’s efforts to restrict immigration have been so dramatic. In many cases, the administration has chipped away at the avenues for immigration through small bureaucratic changes, like the recent proposal to increase immigration-related fees.

On Nov. 14, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a review of the fees required to apply for various immigration services. The proposal is open for comments until Dec. 16. After that, if the new fees are confirmed, they will become effective immediately.

The changes affect a broad range of applications, from green cards through marriage, to naturalization fees, to DACA renewals (though new DACA applications aren’t allowed, existing ones can be renewed).

The new fee structure would also introduce a $50 fee for asylum applications, which would make the United States one of just a handful of countries—including Iran, Australia and Fiji—that don’t offer free asylum applications.

I fail to see the problem. We have too many people coming to this country who feel no allegiance to the US, our founding documents, nor our way of life. Many seem to be ambivalent and even hate the U.S. Many want us to change everything about the nation for these immigrants, be they legal or illegal. There should be no DACA fees: they should leave. Want asylum? Pay for it. The U.S. should no longer be the dumping ground for people who cannot take care of themselves, who have little in the way of working skills, and who will essentially have to be supported by the U.S. taxpayer, instead of us taking care of our own. Let some other nations step.

“It’s (the asylum) not a huge fee,” Kevin Johnson, dean of the school of law at the University of California, Davis, told Quartz. “But it is a huge fee to those who often come at the border with nothing.”

This is an attempt to weed out those who are serious from the BSers looking for easy access to the U.S. Those same BSers generally bring nothing but the need for being on the dole.

The new fees are essentially aimed at tightening the so-called “public charge exclusion,” or reducing the number of people whose immigration applications are rejected because they might require financial support from the US government.

See? I fail to see the problem. And, we wouldn’t need to take these steps if we were allowed to block as many illegals as possible.

Read: Bummer: Trump Is Trying To Make It Took Expensive For Illegals And Moochers To Stay In U.S. »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove