Democrats Might Hold Impeachment Articles Till McConnell Agrees To Their Rules Or Something

By William Teach December 12, 2019 – 7:33 am

They’re searching for some sort of leverage, because the charges need to be presented as vividly as possible

Democrats seek leverage for trial

Senate Democrats are quietly talking about asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to hold articles of impeachment in the House until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) agrees to a fair rules package for a Senate trial.

Democratic senators are concerned by talk among Senate Republicans of holding a speedy trial without witnesses, which would set up a shorter time frame than when the Senate considered President Clinton’s 1999 impeachment.

They want to hear from Trump’s advisers and worry that if they don’t use their leverage now, they’ll have little say over how a Senate trial is run.

“If we don’t agree on a set of rules before the articles arrive over here, I think we’re cooked. I think McConnell has his people totally in line. It will be a procedural thing,” said one concerned Democratic senator.

Hmm, Schiff and Nadler have been ultra-shady with their procedure, did not require the so-called whistleblower, who never witnessed the call, to testify, hid the names of so-called witnesses, most of whom had no firsthand knowledge of the call, prior to having them testify, and limited questions the GOP could ask. And now they want to demand the way the Senate runs their process?

They should be careful what they wish for, less McConnell call Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and other Democrats to testify as to their motives. I’m not quite sure what leverage they think they have, and holding the articles just makes this look ultra political.

University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt, an impeachment specialist, and Frank Bowman, the author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump,” also attended.

The legal experts told Democrats they have a strong case against Trump but that they must present their charges as vividly as possible.

In other words, they have nothing, so, they have to put on theater.

If Pelosi holds onto the articles of impeachment, some Democrats hope it will put more pressure on McConnell to negotiate the trial rules with Schumer.

Yeah, and McConnell said he’d look to pass a partisan package of rules, so, that’s not much leverage saying they’ll hold on to the articles. Democrats should be careful, lest McConnell decide to investigate exactly why Trump was interested in finding out what happened in Ukraine regarding Burisma, and whether Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to get his kid a job, threatening to withhold aid. He admitted it. Really, Democrats are afraid that American voters are going to interfere in the 2020 election.

Read: Democrats Might Hold Impeachment Articles Till McConnell Agrees To Their Rules Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

UN: U.S. Can’t Avoid Paying Climate Reparations Or Something

By William Teach December 11, 2019 – 3:49 pm

Well, sure we can. Where does the United Nations get a giant percentage of its funding from now? Perhaps we can just take that money and give it to nations affected by ‘climate change’ U.S. citizens

U.N. Warns U.S. It Cannot Escape Paying Punitive Climate ‘Reparations’

The United States was warned Wednesday by the United Nations it cannot avoid compensating poorer nations hit by climate change, despite Donald Trump honoring his election promise of leaving the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Delegates and observers at the COP25 negotiations in Madrid told AFP that Washington seeks a change to the U.N. climate convention that could release it from punitive “loss and damage” funding for developing nations which is predicted to run into the billions of dollars.

Under the bedrock U.N. climate treaty, adopted in 1992, rich nations agreed to help developing countries prepare for unavoidable future climate impacts — the twin pillars of “mitigation” and “adaptation”.

A new mechanism was established in 2013, but with damage estimates climbing, there is no agreement on where the money might come from or even if it should be paid, although the U.S. is constantly the target of calls for financial reparations because it is rich, successful and a dominant world economic force.

Well, here’s an idea: the U.S. will no longer provide any aid to developing nations, we’ll just give a portion to the “carbon fund” and let the U.N. dole it out. And wash our hands of the problem. And the problems of the 3rd world nations. They’re all good with that, right? Or, do they think they can shake us down for both? Plus force the U.S. to take uneducated and skill-less refugees?

As Breitbart News reported, the financial impositions being considered include U.N.-administered taxes on financial transactions, international air travel and fossil fuels.

You want a reason to vote Trump? That money comes out of your pocket if a Democrat gets elected.

Read: UN: U.S. Can’t Avoid Paying Climate Reparations Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, UN | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 11, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a tree killed by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on the new trade deal.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Generation Z Is More Concerned About ‘Climate Change’ Than Anything Else

By William Teach December 11, 2019 – 10:30 am

Yet, strangely, almost none of them will give up their own modern lives, their use of fossil fuels (directly and indirectly), pay massive taxes/fees to Government, nor give up their freedom and choice

Generation Z Fears Climate Change More Than Anything Else

Climate change tops the list of vital challenges of our time, say young people interviewed by Amnesty International. The new ‘Future of humanity’ survey of over 10,000 18-25-year olds across 22 countries reveals that 41% of respondents cited global warming as the most important issue facing the world. Amnesty International published the findings today at the UN Climate Change Conference to mark Human Rights Day.

Considering that 2019 saw the youth mobilised to ask climate action, the results weren’t surprising. “This is a wake-up call to world leaders that they must take far more decisive action to tackle the climate emergency or risk betraying younger generations further,” said Kumi Naidoo, secretary general of Amnesty International.

In total, 41% respondents selected climate change, followed by pollution (36%) and terrorism (31%). Global warming also ranked highest among environmental issues, at 57%.

So, we’re supposed to listen to kids who haven’t really entered the Real World and eat Tide Pods, and are more focused on their Instagram and other social media stuff? I wouldn’t listen to my 20 year old self.

Finally, 73% of respondents said governments should take most responsibility for ensuring human rights are upheld – rather than individuals (15%), businesses (6%) and charities (4%).

In other words, Government should dictate our freedom.

“If the leaders of the world are willing to listen carefully, they will notice that Generation Z are not asking for small tweaks. Young people are looking for fundamental changes in the way the world works,” added Naidoo. “If the events of 2019 teach us anything, it is that younger generations deserve a seat at the table when it comes to decisions about them.

Most of them have provided nothing of value in their lives yet, but, they want to dictate these changes? Piss off. It’d be interesting to do they same survey with the same people 10 years from now, once they are in Adult World, and see how they feel. But, then, they’ve also been overly indoctrinated.

Read: Generation Z Is More Concerned About ‘Climate Change’ Than Anything Else »

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

St. Greta Claims Canadian, Norwegian Oil Violates Kids’ Rights Or Something

By William Teach December 11, 2019 – 8:07 am

St. Greta and her disciples Have Spoken

Greta Thunberg Says Norway, Canada Oil Violates Children Rights

Greta Thunberg and 15 other youth climate activists urged Norway and Canada to wind down their oil and gas production, which they said violates children’s rights around the world.

In letters to the prime ministers of both countries, the campaigners contrasted their self-professed roles as international leaders in the fight against climate change against their planned increase in fossil-fuel production, according to a statement from law firm Hausfeld LLP, which represents the petitioners. Higher output breaches commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the activists said.

It’s not the first time Thunberg, 16, has gone up against Norway, which neighbors her native Sweden. In October, she criticized the Scandinavian countries’ emissions record, and cited Norway’s oil policies as one of the reasons for rejecting the Nordic Council Environment Prize.

“Norway must honor its responsibilities to children everywhere,” Thunberg and the 15 other activists said in the letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg. “It must demonstrate how a major fossil fuels producer and exporter can transition away from these pollutants, blazing a trail for other fossil fuel-reliant economies to follow.”

The same 16 petitioners, including children from Nigeria, the U.S. and the Marshall Islands, filed a legal complaint with the UN in September against France, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, and Turkey for not doing enough to tackle climate change. Their latest missives coincide with the UN’s COP25 meeting in Madrid, where Thunberg arrived last week after sailing back across the Atlantic following her trip to the UN Climate Climate Action Summit in New York in September.

Let’s try an experiment: take everything away from St. Greta and her 15 disciples that has any link to fossil fuels. They can say goodbye to their smartphones, computers, tablets, smart watches, lots of clothes, a goodly chunk of their food, the microphones they screech in, and the reporters who cover them, among others, as they all tend to require fossil fuels to transport them to market. And then let’s slap the kiddies with big taxes/fees. Let’s see if they keep their membership cards in the Cult of Climastrology when they are forced to practice what they preach.

They’ll certainly be happy, right? Or, will they suddenly realize that what they’ve been pushing actually hurts their own modern lives, and that ‘climate change’ policy is great in theory, not so much in practice?

Read: St. Greta Claims Canadian, Norwegian Oil Violates Kids’ Rights Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Dem Fail: Majority Of Voters Do Not Want Trump Impeached Or Removed

By William Teach December 11, 2019 – 7:53 am

After beating the bandwagon with Russia Russia Russia since the moment Trump was elected, after yammering about impeaching him and how Orange Man Bad all this time, saying how he is doing such bad things, after the hysteria over the Mueller report, even refusing to give up after it was a big dud, and now after Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine, the quid pro quo and bribery stuff, all the hearings, having the media in their corner, we still end with

Majority of voters don’t want Trump impeached, removed from office: poll

A majority of voters now oppose impeaching and ousting President Trump from office, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday — the same day Democrats unveiled articles of impeachment against the commander in chief.

The poll found that 51% of registered voters surveyed said they don’t want to see Trump impeached and removed from office — compared to 45% who do.

Answers were split along party lines, with 83% of those who said they want the president impeached identifying as Democrats, and 95% who said they don’t identifying as Republicans.

The last time more than 50% opposed impeachment was when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched the inquiry in late September.

The poll released Tuesday was conducted between Dec. 4 and 9, during the series of House Judiciary Committee public hearing and after the House Intelligence Committee hearings.

It’s interesting that 17% of Democrats do not want impeachment, as the number used to be higher. More will peel away. Independents oppose impeachment 52-44. The more the Dems talk, the more the polls shift.

In the same poll, Trump doesn’t doing well on the “handling X” questions except for the one that matters: the economy. 54% approve, 42% disapprove. Even the Never Trumpers aren’t dissing him, as 97% of Republicans approve. On the Dem side, 79% disapprove, of course, but, looking at independents, 54% approve/39% disapprove. Those are good numbers for Trump. The economy is where elections are made. Not climate change, not Medicare for All, not foreign policy, it’s the economy. Bread and Butter issues.

And the poll goes on to note that

So, the 69% say the economy is good to excellent. Even 50% of Democrats say that. 68% of Independents saying it helps Trump. Never underestimate the power of a good economy in a presidential election, whether they had anything to do with it or not. Hence why the Credentialed Media was beating the “OMG, a recession is coming!!!!” drum.

Read: Dem Fail: Majority Of Voters Do Not Want Trump Impeached Or Removed »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Exxon Found Not Guilty In ‘Climate Change’ Lawsuit

By William Teach December 10, 2019 – 5:02 pm

This whole #ExxonKnew garbage has been going on for four years, with numerous attorney generals throwing suit after suit at the wall, but nowhere worse than NY State

Exxon found not guilty in New York climate-change securities fraud trial, ending 4-year saga

New York’s Attorney General failed to prove that Exxon mislead shareholders over the true cost of climate change, a judge ruled Tuesday, ending the oil giant’s multiyear battle against the state.

“The Office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Judge Barry Ostrager of the trial-level state Supreme Court wrote in his ruling.

“The office of the Attorney General produced no testimony from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure, even though the Office of the Attorney General had previously represented it would call such individuals as trial witnesses,” he added.

The $1.6 billion lawsuit brought by the New York attorney general’s office alleged that Exxon deceived investors about the true cost of climate change. The trial, which began in October and was the first climate fraud lawsuit to go to trial, was the result of a four-year investigation.

Despite this tilting at wind turbines mills, NY wants to piss away more money

“Despite this decision, we will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans across our country, and we will continue to fight to end climate change,” Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement following the verdict.

This is all so bad that even at the usually reliable Democrat NY Daily News they’ve had enough, as Tom Stebbins notes

Calling the lawsuit “meritless,” “bizarre,” “twisted” and outside the realm of “objectivity and fairness” at the trial’s opening arguments, Exxon’s lawyer, Theodore Wells Jr., defended the company against the AG’s demand for up to $1.6 billion in payouts. Lawyers for the AG lobbed allegations that ExxonMobil has deceived the public and investors for years by misrepresenting financial risks related to current and future climate change-related regulations. The case, said Wells, was the result of a “political alliance with activists for the purpose of advancing an agenda.”

Stebbins discusses how we got here, starting with disgraced NY AG Eric Schneiderman using “…the Martin Act, a near-century old financial fraud statute — referred to as the “state’s most notorious” and “due-process-neglecting law”. And, as time went on and Exxon refused to back down as most companies do, the charges and accusations changed, as did the AG, to Barbara Underwood, who might have been even more unhinged over this.

Truth is, tarnishing the company in the court of public opinion is what Schneiderman and his allies were after all along. If that isn’t abuse of that Martin Act, one of the nation’s most powerful laws, I don’t know what is.

Yet, interestingly, the State Of New York refuses to give up their own use of fossil fuels. This was all about politics from members of the Cult of Climastrology, and, it is also interesting that just about every single Hotcoldwetdry suit filed, whether civil or criminal, fails.

But, refer back to the line about continuing to fight. They might not come after Exxon any time soon, but, Exxon should keep their eyes open, as should other companies and citizens who are ripe to be bullied by Government.

Read: Bummer: Exxon Found Not Guilty In ‘Climate Change’ Lawsuit »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 10, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is carbon pollution intensive dog causing the air to boil, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the Democrats and their Narrative.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Is Upset That Trump Didn’t Freak Out Over Pensacola Shooting

By William Teach December 10, 2019 – 10:30 am

Now, had President Trump freaked out over the shooting in Pensacola, the same Washington Post Editorial Board would have also Blamed him for that. It’s really a no win situation

Trump’s reaction to Pensacola was insensitive and insufficient

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S reaction to the murderous rampage in Pensacola, Fla., on Friday by an officer of the Royal Air Force of Saudi Arabia was insensitive and grossly insufficient. Three American servicemen lost their lives and eight were wounded by a Saudi wielding a 9mm Glock 45 pistol in a killing rampage that the FBI says is being investigated as terrorism. What does the president say? He finds it “shocking” and conveys the condolences of “very, very devastated” King Salman of Saudi Arabia and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and adds that the kingdom will “help out the families very greatly.”

Not a word from Mr. Trump about the threat of terrorism, or a shred of curiosity about motives and whether the Saudi officer was radicalized and by whom, or a thought about what Saudi Arabia could do to help investigate the shooter, or perhaps a lament that a pilot, a guest of the United States, would carry out such a horrific assault on his hosts, or even a worry about where the 21-year-old officer got the weapon. Mr. Trump quickly pivoted to say there were a lot of countries participating in the aviator training program. He often performs this pivot, a telltale dodge. “There are a lot of killers,” he said once when asked about a leader who dispatches assassins abroad. “I think there is blame on both sides,” he said after Charlottesville.

Mr. Trump has an inexplicable blind spot for Saudi Arabia. He has no trouble insulting in the vilest way people from other Muslim countries. He is hostile generally to people from “shithole” countries. After a terrorist attack in London, he said on Twitter, “These animals are crazy and must be dealt with through toughness and strength!” But when a Saudi carries out an attack on a U.S. military base, Mr. Trump becomes a spokesman and apologist for the king.

So, President Trump decided to actually wait for all the facts before speaking out, and is criticized for it. I don’t remember the WPEB freaking out at Mr. Obama after a real terrorist attack by a Muslim extremist, Nidal Hasan, at Fort Hood, which Obama called “workplace violence” rather than terrorism.

Apparently, the WPEB missed all the reports that this might not be Islamist terrorism, but, someone who utterly lost their shit

(WKRG) According to a report obtained by the New York Times, NAS Pensacola gunman Mohammed Alshamrani was “infuriated” after one of his instructors gave him a derogatory nickname.

The complaint, quoted in a communication circulated among people connected to the flight training, said that the instructor referred to Alshamrani as “Porn Stash” — spelled that way in the report — in front of about 10 other aviation students, embarrassing and angering him, according to the New York Times.

According to the New York Times, the incident happened in April, and it appears to have been upsetting enough that two American students in the class helped him file his complaint.

It could still be terrorism based on Islamist principles, or, it could be someone who was just unhinged. No matter what Trump does, the WPEB and other unhinged Trump haters will find a way to hate on Trump.

Read: Washington Post Is Upset That Trump Didn’t Freak Out Over Pensacola Shooting »

Posted in Journalistic Malpractice, Unhinged Tools | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Policies Could Wipe Out $2.3 Trillion In Global Stocks

By William Teach December 10, 2019 – 7:48 am

Whomever wrote the headline failed to read the article

Climate change could wipe $2.3 trillion off global stocks

Policies designed to combat climate change could permanently slash the value of companies around the world by up to $2.3 trillion.

That’s according to a new report from Principles for Responsible Investment that examines how “inevitable” policies such as banning internal combustion engines will affect stock prices.

The analysis concludes that up to $2.3 trillion, or 4.5%, could be wiped off the value of companies listed on a global stock index from MSCI. The report was prepared by Vivid Economics and Energy Transition Advisers.

Most of that would come from the energy sector and the auto sector. It might not seem like a lot in the overall scheme of international economics, but, that would trickle around the economy, harming people’s retirement funds, and causing an increase in consumer pricing.

But there are also opportunities for investors. Companies that adapt to changing policies would see their combined share prices increase by hundreds of billions of dollars, according to the UN-backed group.

In other words, companies should dupe investors and consumers by making claims that they are Doing Something about ‘climate change’ in feel good campaigns all while they ship products made in China all around the world via fossil fueled vehicles, planes, and boats. Meanwhile, Warmists in Europe are coming after shipping

European shipping emissions undermining international climate targets

Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping equal the carbon footprint of a quarter of passenger cars in Europe and stand in the way of countries reducing emissions and limiting runaway global heating, analysis reveals.

Despite the scale of shipping emissions from both container and cruise ships, they are not part of emissions reduction targets made by countries as part of the Paris agreement on climate change.

In France, Germany, UK, Spain, Sweden and Finland shipping emissions in 2018 were larger than the emissions from all the passenger cars registered in 10 or more of the largest cities in each country, according to the report published on Monday from Transport and Environment, a Brussels-based NGO. (snip)

“To make shipping do its fair share, Europe must bring shipping into its carbon market and mandate CO2 standards for all ships calling at its ports.”

So, what do they want to do? Obviously, banning shipping will mean a massive loss of products for Europe. It appears that they want to slap big fees on the shippers, which will just be passed down to the consumers. Good luck with this.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Policies Could Wipe Out $2.3 Trillion In Global Stocks »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove