AOC’s Grand Idea On Green New Disaster Is To Break It Up To Pass It

By William Teach September 13, 2019 – 4:10 pm

It’s been over half a year since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released her Green New Deal resolution (along with cosponsor Senator Ed Markey (D)), for which she has never demanded a vote. Her big idea to get it passed as actual legislation?

AOC: We are breaking up the Green New Deal

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Tuesday her massive Green New Deal proposal will move forward — in pieces.

“One of the things I think is really exciting,” said the first-term New York Democrat, is that “the legislation that we are planning on introducing is not one broad sweeping piece of legislation.”

Ocasio-Cortez said, “We are breaking it up into parts.”

The liberal Democrat said lawmakers are at work on different pieces of legislation derived from the Green New Deal, which calls for eliminating carbon emissions in the United States in 10 years.

One of the first measures will promote the transition to electric vehicles, she said.

Ocasio-Cortez said she plans to introduce a bill this month aimed at transitioning the U.S. to carbon-neutral buildings, which she called a “Green New Deal housing plan.”

She’s really excited about this

“We are really excited about it,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “That’s going to be dropping this month, and it’s going to be really a focus on buildings, which is one of the three major industries we have to focus on when it comes to reducing carbon emissions.”

The proof will be how it’s written, but, you can bet it will involve the Central Planning Office, er, federal government, imposing massive controls on your domicile and workplace, increasing costs tremendously, making housing even more expensive, making the cost of doing business very expensive. All while doing nothing to “solve” anthropogenic climate change.

Read: AOC’s Grand Idea On Green New Disaster Is To Break It Up To Pass It »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is the need for lots of boats when the rising seas create inland oceans, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on former ICE Director Thomas Homan ripping AOC and Rashida Tlaib a new one.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Americans Increasingly See Hotcoldwetdry As A Crisis But Are Unwilling To Pay $2 Themselves

By William Teach September 13, 2019 – 10:41 am

It’s very easy to see something as a crisis when the schools and media portray it constantly as a crisis. In theory

Americans increasingly see climate change as a crisis, poll shows

A growing number of Americans describe climate change as a crisis, and two-thirds say President Trump is doing too little to tackle the problem.

The results, from a poll conducted by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), point to a growing disconnect between Americans worried about the warming planet and Trump administration officials, who have aggressively scaled back Obama-era environmental regulations and relinquished the nation’s role as a global leader in pushing for climate action.

The poll finds that a strong majority of Americans — about 8 in 10 — say that human activity is fueling climate change, and roughly half believe action is urgently needed within the next decade if humanity is to avert its worst effects. Nearly 4 in 10 now say climate change is a “crisis,” up from less than a quarter five years ago.

If you read the poll, you’ll find lots and lots of stuff that seems good for the Cult of Climastrology. In theory

Though Americans are increasingly worried about climate change, fewer than 4 in 10 say they believe that tackling the problem will require them to make “major sacrifices.” And most are unwilling to pay for it out of their own pockets.

For example, while nearly half of adults say they would be willing to pay a $2 monthly tax on their electricity bills to help combat climate change, just over a quarter say they are willing to pay $10 extra each month. And while two-thirds support stricter fuel-efficiency standards for the nation’s cars and trucks, increases in the gas tax remain deeply unpopular.

I’ve mentioned that AP-NORC survey which finds that 68% of Americans wouldn’t be willing to pay even $10 more a month in higher electric bills even if the money were used to combat climate change many times, right? The WP-Kaiser poll made a big mistake in asking similar, which is where the above comes from

So, among the respondents, which has a Dem/Rep/Ind breakdown of 37/25/29 (oversamples Dems)

  • 51% aren’t willing to pay $2 on their electric bills. $2.
  • 64% aren’t willing to pay 10 cents more per gallon
  • 71% aren’t willing to pay $10 a month on their electric bill

So, theory about Solving Climate Doom doesn’t quite hit the real world.

Read: Americans Increasingly See Hotcoldwetdry As A Crisis But Are Unwilling To Pay $2 Themselves »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Comrade Bernie’s Green New Deal Would Essentially Nationalize The U.S. Energy Sector

By William Teach September 13, 2019 – 7:11 am

Hey, this isn’t me saying this (though, having read Comrade Bernie’s GND policy, I completely agree): this is the far left AlterNet, which is all about Trump hatred, holding Trump responsible, and I just got a popup ad asking for money to try and get Democrats to call John Bolton to testify

Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal plan will nationalize power generation in the US

Bernie Sanders recently released his plan for implementing the Green New Deal. These include such comprehensive goals as transitioning to 100% renewable energy for electricity and transportation by 2030 and decarbonizing the entire economy by 2050 (full details here).

To get there, Sanders plans a number of ambitious projects, including massive and job-creating infrastucture spending and “declaring climate change a national emergency.” The implications of the latter are not entirely spelled out. A number of candidates have proposals that “declare a national emergency” regarding climate change, but not in the same sense that George W. Bush, for example, may have meant had he declared the 9/11 attacks a national emergency (he didn’t, but he could have).

(Excerpts from Comrade Bernie’s plan)

The plan has rightly been called a nationalization of electric power generation. Chris Hayes noted this fact in his recent interview with Sanders, calling it “a federal takeover of the whole thing,” to which Sanders essentially agrees (see video at the top). Other writers have said the same. For example, In These Times, under the headline “Bernie Sanders Calls To Seize the Means of Electricity Production” accurately describes the plan as “moving toward 100% public ownership of power.”

So there really is no doubt. Sanders, if he’s elected, plans to nationalize electricity generation in the U.S.

Yes, there is video at the link. This one

And, of course, climate cultists are excited!

What are the implications of this proposal? A few thoughts:

1. Bernie Sanders is serious about addressing climate change. Simply speaking, Sanders is right. It’s long past time for tinkering around the edges of the problem.

What could possibly go wrong with the Central Government nationalizing the entire energy sector? Also, where are all the Internet folks who told me I was a crazy conspiracy theorist (among other slurs) for noting that the Cult of Climastrology wants to take over the energy sector (among other things)?

Put simply, American voters must be allowed to choose whether or not to address climate change meaningfully, regardless of the possibility that they may choose not to address it at all. An honest conversation is the least we owe voters whose descendants will ultimately thank them or hate them for what they finally decide. Letting voters choose for themselves is called democracy.

Despite the fears of many though, there are reasons for optimism. If voters are given a realistic discussion of the alternatives and a realistic presentation of the way to get there, they could easily choose well. They certainly chose well under FDR, when war raged in Europe and the Imperial Japanese wolf was at the door. It’s at least even odds they would choose as wisely again, when all of nature seems poised to cause their demise.

Really? Climate cultist Thomas Neuburger thinks that the American people will choose to have the government nationalize the energy sector for reals? Remember, again, 68% of Americans do not want to pay $10 a month to “solve” Hotcoldwetdry.

Read: Comrade Bernie’s Green New Deal Would Essentially Nationalize The U.S. Energy Sector »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

After Flavored E-Cigarette Ban, Gun Grabbers Want To Ban Guns

By William Teach September 13, 2019 – 6:57 am

There’s some uncertainty over what the proposed ban would cover: will it be all flavored e-juice, or just pods? Pods are cartridges that contain e-liquid that you attach to the batteries. This is for things like the JUUL, which you hear a lot about. With straight e-liquid, you fill up a container yourself. Those people with the monster size devices in their hands which release tons of “smoke” use this. It’s what I use (though I use a small Kanger EVOD, easier in the pocket.) I like my coffee flavors. But, of course, this leads the gun grabbers to call for gun grabbing

American children are under attack — but not from flavored vapes

There have been 22 shootings at U.S. schools in 2019 alone. Active-shooter drills are a back-to-school activity. America’s children are under attack.

And President Trump has moved to protect them by banning … flavored vape pods?

Apparently, it’s a mint-flavored Juul that stands as the biggest threat to children today. (snip)

It’s something of a shock, then, to remember that this administration and the Republicans that back it can’t even bring themselves to cast a sideways glance at a gun, even though firearms cause an average of 1,500 children’s deaths each year. According to the University of Michigan, middle- and high-school-age children are now more likely to die as the result of a firearm injury than from any other single cause of death. Every day an average of 100 Americans are killed by guns. What about the youths affected by that?

Sure seems like that is a call to ban firearms, does it not? Even though the same Washington Post says you should be worried if your teen smells like berries, cotton candy, or mint. But, then

As news of the Trump administration’s plan to ban most flavored e-cigarettes rippled across social media, another topic quickly hijacked the conversation: gun control. Pointing out that the thousands of gun deaths in the United States vastly outnumber the six fatalities attributed to vaping, some activists and legislators bemoaned the lack of meaningful action on guns. They renewed demands for gun-control measures such as bans on assault rifles.

“Now do AR-15s,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who was among several prominent voices, including Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts, the March for Our Lives movement, comedian Dave Weasel and actress Bette Midler, in drawing the comparison with guns.

The Post then offers more unhinged tweets

Calls for legislation addressing gun violence have ramped up in recent months. On Thursday, one day after Trump’s e-cigarette announcement, the CEOs of 145 U.S. companies urged Senate leaders to expand background checks for gun purchases and strengthen red-flag laws. The executives, who lead companies such as Yelp, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Levi Strauss, wrote that they had a responsibility to “stand up for the safety of our employees, customers and all Americans in the communities we serve across the country.”

First, these CEO’s surely have their own personal armed security. Second, when you start seeing links to guns in a discussion of banning flavored e-cigarettes, you know the Gunnites are looking for more than just “expanded background checks and red flag laws.

And then you gave the Democrats who specifically tell us what they are going to do. It won’t be just bans of new sales, but forced confiscation of existing firearms.

Read: After Flavored E-Cigarette Ban, Gun Grabbers Want To Ban Guns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

News Outlet NJ.com To Join Climate Cult

By William Teach September 12, 2019 – 4:55 pm

Will Advance Media owned NJ.com be offering all sides of the debate, or just one side?

Why we’re joining hundreds of news outlets to cover climate change

On September 23, world leaders will gather at the United Nations in New York to decide how global society will deal with one of the most far-reaching problems we face today: Climate Change.

That meeting is the United Nations Climate Action Summit, and it is set to be a landmark event in which the nations of the world will submit their plans to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

NJ Advance Media, the journalistic engine behind NJ.com and The Star-Ledger, is joining more than 170 other media outlets across the globe for an initiative called Covering Climate Now.

The goal of the project — which is led by The Guardian, The Nation and Columbia Journalism Review — is to have a week’s worth of climate coverage leading up to the international summit. Stories will run online, in newspapers, on television and on radio.

Our goal at NJ Advance Media is to illustrate how climate change is already impacting the lives of New Jerseyans, and what those impacts will look like in the future.

I’m guessing the answer to my question is “no way in hell.” The UK Guardian long ago gave up any pretense of journalism, and is purely an activist media outlet, as much so as Media Matters, the now dead Think Progress, and the HuffPost. Heck, the NY Times opinion section offers more opposing voices than the UK Guardian.

Taking a look around, it doesn’t seem like other Advance Media properties are engaged in this. At least yet. Though, Conde Nast, The New Yorker, Teen Vogue, Vanity Fair, and Wired have long been in the Cult of Climastrology (and are involved in this project). CBS news is also involved, as is the uber far left Democracy Now

We are committed to covering climate change in New Jersey, and we are proud to join such an expansive initiative to spotlight the expansive and pervasive issue.

But, they won’t be committed to providing actual news, just climate cultist propaganda, while refusing to give up their own use of fossil fuels and making the companies involved in NJ.com carbon neutral.

Oh, and you know this is insane when the refer to Bill McKibben as an “independent journalist.”

Read: News Outlet NJ.com To Join Climate Cult »

Posted in Global Warming, Journalistic Malpractice | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 12, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible fossil fueled vehicles releasing carbon pollution causing earthquakes that raise the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is America’s Watchtower, with a post on the Supreme Court allowing Trump’s asylum rule to go forward.

Back to Brazil.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Team Trump To Fly Anti-Socialism Banner Over Democratic Debate

By William Teach September 12, 2019 – 10:30 am

Say what you will about Trump and his team, they know how to get their message out in a different way than most modern politicians, especially Republicans. Democrats have tended to use their surrogates for the hits, with the media providing even more as they amplify it. Republicans have just wilted. Not Trump

Trump campaign flying anti-socialism banner above Democratic debate

President Trump’s reelection campaign will be flying a banner attacking socialism in Houston on Thursday, shortly before Democratic presidential candidates take the debate stage there.

An official with the campaign told ABC News that the group plans to fly a banner that reads, “Socialism will kill Houston’s economy,” from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. The third Democratic presidential debate is scheduled to begin an hour later.

The campaign also plans to take out two full-page advertisements in local newspapers taking aim at Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Vice President Joe Biden and former Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julián Castro. The ads will run in Houston and in San Antonio, where Castro was born, the campaign said.

Erin Perrine, deputy communications director for the campaign, said in a statement that “every single Democrat candidate has job killing, economy crushing policies that won’t work for America.”

“Team Trump is here to remind them and let everyone in Houston know what a complete disaster Democrats are for America,” Perrine added.

And what happens? Well, media folks are publishing articles about this, so people find out. Even if the TV folks refuse to show the banner, it will show up on social media and be spread around and people will see it. And then the news media will publish stories on it Friday. The cost?

Both the ads and the fly-over banner cost the campaign around $7,500, ABC News reported.

That’s $7,500 well spend. This will make a nationwide impression for just $7,500.

That was from Labor Day weekend, when those banners flew, for just $20,000. Maximizing the views.

Read: Team Trump To Fly Anti-Socialism Banner Over Democratic Debate »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump | 48 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Making You Nuts? There’s A Word For That Or Something

By William Teach September 12, 2019 – 8:49 am

There’s also a phrase: bat-guano insane. But, the wackadoodles in the Cult of Climastrology want to make their idiocy sound legitimate, instead of being a bunch of whiny, and hypocritical, babies

Climate change got you down? There’s a word for what you’re feeling

For the past 14 years, the end of summer has arrived like a burden, heavy with the anniversary of when my life, and so many others’, was split in two. Anyone affected by Hurricane Katrina is party to dual lives: One before the waves crashed in and left mud and mildew in their wake, before homes were marked with X’s by rescue crews, before our neighbors fled — and one after.

I could never really capture this feeling with words. It was a complicated mix of sadness, fear, misery, despair. But none of those words quite cut to the core of the sensation.

When I discovered the term for environmental anguish, in a National Geographic write-up, it felt like a diagnosis. I read the definition over and over again. “Solastalgia, a form of mental or existential distress caused by environmental change.” The word itself also reflects the duality of the feeling. Solastalgia is a combination of Latin’s solacium, meaning comfort, and algia, a Greek root for pain. The pain of losing the comforts of home.

Well, I can see how one could have some distress over what happened there going back, say, 10 years, but, it’s been 14 years, it hasn’t happened again, and the disaster had exactly zero to do with anthropogenic climate change. Is there a term for incompetent Democratic Party leaders who really hosed the New Orleans and Louisiana responses? Demastalgia? Remember, Katrina did not make landfall on New Orleans, but further to the east, and we did not hear about all these problems, because they were Republican run areas.

Many factors contributed to the destruction following Hurricane Katrina — from a lack of federal support to man-made miscalculations. But scientists are still examining how climate change played into the natural disaster. There’s no straightforward answer, but factors like sea level rise and warming Gulf waters, which affects the scale of hurricanes, have clear connections to global climate change.

As our climate situation becomes increasingly dire, the country is beginning to experience emergencies that grow to more catastrophic levels with each passing season. There are unprecedented winter storms, floods, heat waves and, of course, wildfires.

Actually, no there aren’t, but, it’s cute how they are blaming winter storms on increasing warmth, pretty much because they’re nuts.

Solastalgia. There is finally a word. Something to describe an indescribable feeling. While there is a feeling of camaraderie and acceptance in finding a description to share with others who have felt the pain of losing their environment, the reason for the word’s emergence in our vocabulary is also a warning.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Making You Nuts? There’s A Word For That Or Something »

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

Surprise: Democrats Admit That Their “Assault Weapons” Ban Harms Law Abiding Citizens

By William Teach September 12, 2019 – 8:29 am

Democrats are having a bit of an issue getting their “assault weapons” ban to the floor, all while a main sponsor explains what it would really do

Support erodes for a ban on assault weapons

As Democrats make an aggressive push for new gun control legislation, they have made a calculated decision to stop short of pursuing their most ambitious goal: an assault weapons ban.

The overwhelming majority of House Democrats — 211, seven shy of the 218 needed for passage — are co-sponsoring legislation to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons, similar to the ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. But some centrist Democrats remain skittish about any proposal that keeps firearms from law-abiding citizens — a frequent charge against Democrats by Republicans and gun rights groups — making a ban politically risky for moderates in Trump-friendly districts. In the Senate, it draws less support.

The split reveals just how complicated gun politics remain inside the Democratic Party, even as mass shootings are terrorizing the nation and the Twitter hashtag #DoSomething has captured the mounting public demands for Congress to act.

“A frequent charge against Democrats”

“Let’s be honest,” said Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, the sponsor of the current assault weapons measure. “Every other bill that we’ve done tries to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. This is the one piece of legislation that keeps a particular weapon out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. A lot of people have enormous objections to that.”

So, it is about taking weapons away from law abiding citizens. But, wait, I thought any push for a new ban wouldn’t affect current owners? No? Isn’t that what they tell us? That this bill would simply outlaw the new sales of the hundreds of firearm models (the 1994 ban only banned 19)? It sounds like they are trying to take them away from citizens.

(The 1994 assault weapons ban) also outlawed magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, while allowing people who already had such weapons to keep them. But it had a sunset provision, and Congress refused to renew it when it expired in 2004, in part because Democrats were nervous that it could cost them reelection.

What happens when you try and actually ban magazines that hold more than 10 round and take them away from citizens?

Not an exageration

A New Jersey State Police spokesman said not a single large-capacity magazine has been turned in since the law went into effect nearly nine months ago. Residents can also bring them to their local police departments.

Remember, Australia has only seen about 20% of weapons turned in from their ban, and New Zealand isn’t seeing that many turned in.

Read: Surprise: Democrats Admit That Their “Assault Weapons” Ban Harms Law Abiding Citizens »

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