Democrats Must Go To War With Fossil Fuels Industry Or Something

By William Teach September 7, 2019 – 4:30 pm

I completely, 100% endorse this idea

Democrats must go to war with fossil fuel industry to take on the climate crisis

Nearly every candidate that participated in CNN’s seven-hour climate town hall agreed that we need to invest trillions of dollars in building a clean energy economy fit for the 21st century, and create hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs in the process. However impressive these commitments are, they won’t be worth much if they don’t also take on the fossil fuel industry.

There was plenty of common ground to be found on Wednesday night, where candidates happily focused more on presenting their own visions than tearing down those of their opponents. On what to do with dirty energy companies, though, the differences couldn’t be starker. (snip)

Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, has pledged in his plan for a Green New Deal to make the fossil fuel industry enemy No 1, cutting into their business model and holding them accountable for the years they spent spreading misinformation about global warming. Elizabeth Warren rightly called out the fact that focusing on plastic straws and lightbulbs – as last night’s moderators at CNN insisted on doing – distracts from the fact that responsibility for this crisis is concentrated among a small number of corporations; just 90 companies – most of them fossil fuel producers – have been responsible for two-thirds of manmade greenhouse gas emissions since the dawn of the industrial age.

There has been plenty of debate this cycle over candidates’ relative positions on nuclear energy, with policy wonks not unreasonably arguing that it could be risky to take that option off the table entirely. But any climate plan that doesn’t challenge the gargantuan power of the fossil fuel industry head-on is flatly denying several realities about our energy system. While the cost of renewables has plummeted over the last several years, their share of our energy mix has remained largely flat. Use of natural gas – what Amy Klobuchar called a “transitional” fuel – will need to decline 74% by mid-century, if we’re to take the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seriously, but is poised to grow dramatically over the next several years via fresh development in the Permian and Appalachian basins. Building even prodigious amounts of clean power won’t stop that, or magically outcompete incumbent fuels. In short, there is nothing “inevitable” about the transition to renewables. (snip)

There’s no way around it: curbing the climate crisis means going to war with the fossil fuel industry – not attending their fundraisers.

Well, good luck with this. They’d be promising to, again, skyrocket energy costs and the cost of living, all while making it almost impossible for citizens to get anywhere on their own, since most can’t afford to purchase an expensive hybrid (where will the energy to recharge them come from?). You can kiss air flights goodbye. How will the military operate? You can’t run a tank or non-nuclear ship on solar panels. So, they should push this line, showing citizens just how insane they are. It will make Trump’s re-election that much easier.

Read: Democrats Must Go To War With Fossil Fuels Industry Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Energy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Democrats Must Go To War With Fossil Fuels Industry Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is the flag of an Evil carbon polluting nation causing hurricanes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on Mayor Pete’s twisted scripture.

Cleaned out the folder of the final downloaded photo below the fold, so, also check out The Daley Gator, with a post on what Dakota Fanning is defending herself over

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

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

Politico Advises Democrats To Ixnay On The Crazytay

By William Teach September 7, 2019 – 11:16 am

Gee, ya think?

From the article

Democrats’ verbal targeting of everything from plastic straws to cheeseburgers is stoking fears among anti-Trump forces that they’re unwittingly playing into Republican culture wars.

Conservative recrimination over the threatened wholesale takeover of society came swiftly after CNN’s marathon climate change forum with Democratic presidential hopefuls this week. Republicans gleefully painted the field as a bunch of out-of-touch elites: In one video, the Republic National Committee shared brief clips from the candidates, including Joe Biden, appearing to advocate a shutdown of coal-burning plants and taking gas-burning vehicles off the road “as rapidly as we can.”

The message: There are no moderates running for the nomination.

That’s the video I posted the other day. Anyhow, after highlighting the silliness of many of the contenders, we get

Even before the town halls, Trump’s reelection campaign and outside allies were weaponizing various daily inconveniences into arguments against making small sacrifices environmentalists believe are needed to help save the planet. The president’s campaign this summer unveiled laser-engraved plastic “TRUMP” straws ($15 for a 10-pack). Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale complained about the ineffectiveness of recyclable paper straws.

It is these seemingly little things that capture people’s attention, and make it very easy to understand what Democrats really want to do. And are doing. And the actual words of Democrats will be politically weaponized. Again, this is exactly why the DNC did not want a Hotcoldwetdry debate.

Read: Politico Advises Democrats To Ixnay On The Crazytay »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming, Politics | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Kamala Harris Wants Mandatory Buyback Of Scary Looking Rifles

By William Teach September 7, 2019 – 7:21 am

Well, good luck getting this one through Congress, Kamala. And, remember, every single one of these utterances will be stockpiled for Team Trump and other Republicans to pull out and highlight your Authoritarian impulses

Kamala Harris Supports Mandatory Buyback of Assault Weapons

Kamala Harris said Friday she supports a mandatory buyback of military-style assault weapons, taking a more aggressive position than her main rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“I think it’s a good idea,” she told reporters after a campaign event in Londonderry, New Hampshire.

“We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do” support a forced buyback, Harris said when asked about the policy. “We have to take those guns off the streets.”

A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 49% of Americans oppose a mandatory buyback of assault weapons while 46% favor the idea. But among Democrats, 71% support the idea while just 23% are against it.

It might be popular among Democrats, but, that won’t help her during the general election, if she makes it to being the Democrat nominee. But, how would this work? After Australia banned most privately held firearms it has been estimated that only 20% were turned in. What percent does Kamala think would be turned in here in America? Can it even be realistically estimated? Does she think people will turn in their lawfully purchased property, purchased after passing a federal background check, for a pittance?

Will she be demanding that her own armed security give up their own assault rifles? Or is it just law abiding citizens she wants to disarm? Further, this is why the Democrats enhanced universal background checks is a bad idea, as it would require gun registration, so Los Federales would know who has what and where.

Read: Kamala Harris Wants Mandatory Buyback Of Scary Looking Rifles »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Liz Warren Plans To Ban All Fracking, New Fossil Fuels Leases On Day 1

By William Teach September 7, 2019 – 7:04 am

And she would be sued out the ying yang on day 2

(Breitbart) Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on Friday promised to sign an executive order on her first day in office, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel leases and pledged to ban fracking “everywhere.”

Warren promised in a tweet Friday to “sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands” and vowed to “ban fracking — everywhere”:

Warren’s pledge to ban fracking follows Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) call, urging fellow Democrat candidates to support a “fracking ban on public and private lands.”

“Fracking is a danger to our water supply. It’s a danger to the air we breathe. It causes earthquakes. It’s highly explosive. Safe fracking is, like clean coal, pure fiction,” Sanders said in a statement Wednesday.

First, she doesn’t necessarily have the legal authority to ban all fracking across the nation: she can’t just change federal and state law with the wave of an executive order, even on federal land. At a minimum, she would be violating legal contracts. Second, she really is just exposing that she, like so many Democrats, are just despots in waiting.

Third, would this apply to re-authorization of existing leases? They need to be re-authorized periodically, so, would she kill those? Why does it seem that every Democrat wants to skyrocket the cost of energy for citizens, which will skyrocket the cost of living, all while running around the nation on fossil fueled vehicles? How would she get to work and other places without fossil fuels? What will she do when kids are freezing to death because the wind turbines and solar panels can’t provide enough energy for heat? And when people are cutting down more trees for fireplaces?

Seriously, she’s saying she wants to start destroying the economy and the lives of citizens on day 1. And lots of groups and companies would sue her on day 2 for violating contracts and exceeding her legal, Constitutional authority.

Read: Liz Warren Plans To Ban All Fracking, New Fossil Fuels Leases On Day 1 »

Posted in Democrats, Energy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: The Founders Would Have Supported Socialized Medicare For All

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

Dr. Jeanne Abrams at the University of Denver thinks she’s on to something

Why the Founders would have supported Medicare-for-all

As the Democratic primary campaign unfolds, health care remains the subject of heated discussion. While the conversation about universal access and government responsibility has followed partisan lines in the 21st century, the idea that government has, could and should shoulder responsibilities to ensure the health and well-being of its citizens is at the heart of our country’s founding.

George and Martha Washington, John and Abigail Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and James and Dolly Madison lived in an age where modern medicine was just beginning to develop. Even though they were part of the colonial elite, none were immune to sickness, disease and rampant epidemics, and concerns about both public and personal health frequently shaped the trajectory of their daily lives.

Despite their political differences, they all recognized early on that the economic, social and political health of the American nation clearly was connected to the physical health of its citizens, lessons leaders of both parties should remember today.

OK, so what does that have to do with The Government being in charge of all our healthcare?

The Founders’ personal encounters with illness and tragic loss of family members, including many of their children, made them acutely sensitive to issues surrounding medical treatment and disease. Smallpox and yellow fever epidemics provided the impetus for several early American health-care initiatives. As early as 1777, during the height of the Revolutionary War, John Adams recorded that the Continental Congress had passed legislation that expanded the Army’s Hospital Department. He lamented the fact that more soldiers died of smallpox than British bullets. The frugal New Englander wrote his wife, Abigail, with approval that, “The expense will be great, but humanity overcame avarice.”

Later, after Adams became the second president of the United States, he signed a bill in 1798 “to provide for the relief and maintenance of disabled seamen,” creating the U.S. Marine Hospital Service. It gave rise to a network of hospitals located at sea and river ports across the country, and over the next century it evolved into the national U.S. Public Health Service. The 1798 bill passed following a severe outbreak of yellow fever, as Adams and other politicians recognized that sailors often brought a variety of diseases with them to ports, including smallpox, yellow fever and malaria, and quarantine was sometimes necessary.

Still not to the point of Government generously taxing the living shit of citizens and being in control of who gets what for healthcare

This belief united the founding generation that was otherwise frequently divided over questions about the role of government in American life. For example, Franklin helped found the country’s first voluntary public hospital (financed through a combination of individual private contributions and government funds) and the first American medical school. Washington insisted on smallpox inoculation for all his Revolutionary War troops, as many of the young soldiers had never been exposed to the disease. Despite concerns about ineffectiveness and even the dangerous potential for contracting a severe case of smallpox, which could be fatal, Washington believed such a mandate could protect his troops and help ensure the success of the war effort.

Still not getting there

From the beginning, America’s Founders recognized that government had compelling reasons to shoulder some new responsibilities with respect to ensuring the health and well-being of its citizenry while still protecting individual liberty, an outlook which contemporary Americans from across the political spectrum should appreciate as they search for common ground over a contentious issue that personally affects us all.

Yeah, still not there, and that’s the last paragraph. “Should some new responsibilities” is a far cry from Government being out healthcare controller, eh? This is just a wishful fantasy from a Big Government leftist (who is probably against privately owned firearms and would screech about hate speech and stuff) who can only provide some small examples from a few of the Founders, forgetting that if they wanted government running healthcare, they would have put it in the Declaration Of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. The Founders believed in a very limited role of the Federal Government, and wrote the Constitution on those beliefs.

Read: Hot Take: The Founders Would Have Supported Socialized Medicare For All »

Posted in Beyond Moonbat, Constitution | 63 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 6, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea made rough by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on CNN and Sharpiegate.

BTW, all I got from Dorian here on the east side of Raleigh was about 2 inches of rain. Didn’t even blow a cup (now filled with 2 inches of water) off my back deck. No trees down, not even really branches.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cultist Recommends Eating Human Flesh To Solve Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach September 6, 2019 – 10:31 am

Now, Comrade Bernie was pushing this

(Real Clear Politics) Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders answered “yes” and spoke about abortion when asked at a CNN town hall event Wednesday night if population control would play a part in his administration’s policy for dealing with climate change.

“Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but it’s crucial to face,” an audience member asked. “Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?”

“And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd. So I think especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support,” he concluded.

So, population reduction, especially for those black and brown people in 3rd world countries….funny how Democrats/Warmists always want to hit up “minorities.” But, then we have this

https://twitter.com/melifix/status/1169760751348637696

From the link

Climate Change alarmism has taken a macabre turn that will seem to be satire, but is not. It happened in Sweden.

At a summit for food of the future (the climate-ravaged future) called Gastro Summit, in Stockholm Sept 3-4, a professor held a powerpoint presentation asserting that we must “awaken the idea” of eating human flesh in the future, as a way of combatting the effects of climate change.

In a talk titled “Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh?” behavioral scientist and marketing strategist Magnus Söderlund from “Handelshögskolan” (College of Commerce) argues for the breaking down of the ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and eating human flesh.

He refers to the taboos against it as “conservative,” and discusses people’s resistance to it as a problem that could be overcome, little by little, beginning with persuading people to just taste it. He can be seen in his video presentation and on State Swedish Television channel TV4 saying that since food sources will be scarce in the future, people must be introduced to eating things they have thus far considered disgusting–among them, human flesh.

If you think this won’t eventually become a more mainstream Warmist position, you haven’t been paying attention to them

People can be “tricked” Soderlund teases, into “making the right decisions.”

Conflating resistance to eating human flesh with capitalist selfishness, the seminar’s talking points ask:

“Are we humans too selfish to live sustainably?

Read: Climate Cultist Recommends Eating Human Flesh To Solve Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

The Power And Anger, But Mostly Anger, Of Climate Change Voters Is Growing Or Something

By William Teach September 6, 2019 – 7:11 am

The Cult of Climastrology may be driving much of what the Democratic candidates are saying and the policies they’re trotting out during the pre-primaries, but, it won’t help in the general elections

The growing power and anger of climate change voters

The voter passionately motivated by climate change was once something of an anomaly. But that is changing as President Donald Trump has systematically unraveled the nation’s environmental regulations at the same time that Americans have witnessed a series of climate-related crises: fires in the Amazon, hurricanes that churn with increasing fury and record-shattering temperatures and weather events across the US.

Surprisingly, this isn’t in an opinion section, but, hey, CNN

For the first time in any presidential cycle, Democrats had a mainstream candidate — in Washington Gov. Jay Inslee — who ran a campaign centered on climate change. Since Inslee dropped out last month, his former rivals have vowed to pick up his mantle — with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren literally adopting Inslee’s climate change plan as her own as she and nine other candidates prepared for CNN’s town hall solely focused on the climate crisis.

So, the only guy who’s entire campaign was based on Hotcoldwetdry failed miserably? Huh.

“In 2018, we saw a big shift in terms of candidates running on climate change as never before, and that has only increased as we’re seeing in the presidential,” Sittenfeld said. “I think — if not every candidate, pretty close to every single candidate — who is going to be on (CNN’s town hall) stage has put out an ambitious, comprehensive plan to combat the climate crisis. So we’ve definitely seen that this issue is finally starting to get the attention that it deserves.”

Interestingly, the policies they push for ‘climate change’ dovetail perfectly with the rest of their authoritarian/SJW beliefs, and seem to spend less time on ‘climate change’ than on all the authoritarian/SJW stuff.

The growing alarm is most pronounced among younger voters. John Della Volpe, who directs the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics poll, noted that climate change “is now viewed as a top area of concern within both a domestic and foreign policy framework” for those within the 18-29 year-old age group, though it generally still ranks behind health care, the economy and immigration.

Good luck depending on the youth vote. It never materializes.

Of course, there’s a lot of anti-Trump stuff in the screed

He has mocked the “Green New Deal” proposed by Democrats as an exorbitantly costly and unnecessary — a policy disagreement that is likely to loom large during the general election.

Would this be the same GND that Democrats won’t vote on in the House and voted “present” on in the Senate?

Anyhow, blah blah blah, hate on Trump, polls polls polls, all while forgetting that the majority do not even want to pay $10 a month to “solve” Hotcoldwetdry.

Read: The Power And Anger, But Mostly Anger, Of Climate Change Voters Is Growing Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on The Power And Anger, But Mostly Anger, Of Climate Change Voters Is Growing Or Something | Trackback URL

Washington Post Is Super Happy That Walmart Is Curbing Gun Violence Or Something

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

See, Walmart always requires a federal background check, as required by federal law, when they sell a firearm, so, the people who buy them are following the law and have to be law abiding to pass said NICS check, which is what Democrats want, right? They also stopped selling any scary looking “assault style weapons” back in 2015, and rarely had them in the first place. And stopped selling handguns, something most stores didn’t have in the first place. Their sales accounted for maybe 2% of lawful sales. But, now, the Washington Post Editorial Board is super happy

Walmart is acting to curb gun violence. How about Congress?

THE SPARK for Walmart’s action is terrible: deadly shootings at two of its stores this summer, with 24 people slaughtered. Nonetheless, the giant retailer’s realization that “the status quo is unacceptable” should be applauded. Walmart will change its gun policies, ending the sale of ammunition that can be used in military-style assault rifles. By acknowledging it has a role in helping to make the country safer, Walmart hopefully sets an example that other companies — not to mention Congress — will follow.

Walmart on Tuesday waded full-stream into the national gun debate with its unexpected announcement that it will no longer sell certain kinds of ammunition, will completely end the sale of handguns and will prohibit customers from openly carrying guns in its stores, even where doing so is permitted by law. Walmart already had stopped selling assault-style weapons and had imposed age limits and background checks on gun sales that were stricter than federal law.

Tuesday’s announcement — notably its call to Congress to increase background checks and consider a new ban on assault weapons — showed a bold willingness to take a lead on this fraught issue. That Kroger quickly joined Walmart in asking customers not to openly carry guns in its stores and also called for stricter background checks underscored the importance of the country’s largest employer paving the way.

What do background checks solve? Is Walmart admitting that they weren’t performing them?

No doubt, as some critics have pointed out, Walmart’s evolution on gun sales might be tied to other motives, such as new emphasis in building online markets in East and West Coast cities and suburbs where gun sales are not key and the clientele is more liberal. But if, indeed, Walmart has determined that guns and the violence that accompanies them are bad for business, so much the better. We hope Republicans in Congress who refuse to wake up to the need for gun reform find their stance is bad for business, too.

See, this is exactly why gun rights supporters are loathe to allow anything to go forward, because we know it is just the beginning. Give the gun grabbers expanded background checks, which only works with a owned gun database, and bans on “assault weapons”, then they will want bans on other semi-automatics. On this rifle and that handgun. On open and concealed carry. On ammunition

(CBS News) The Bentonville, Arkansas-based discounter said Tuesday it will stop selling handgun ammunition as well as short-barrel rifle ammunition, such as the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber used in military style weapons, after it runs out of its current inventory. That in turn will reduce Walmart’s market share of ammunition from around 20% to a range of about 6% to 9%, according to a memo by the company CEO Doug McMillon.

So, I can’t get my .22LR ammo for my tiny popgun anymore? Huh. I guess 9mm is out, as well. And people can’t get .223 for their hunting rifles? Wow, that’ll teach criminals and mass murderers! Which is what the gun grabbers want. Ban ammunition. If they can’t get that, then they want background checks, which cost money and time, as well as high taxes, on ammunition. Plus limiting the amount that can be purchased. So, when I buy 3-5 boxes of .22LR to use at the range, at 100 rounds per box, nope, they would stop me at 100.

It’s all about dinking and dunking their way towards what was done in Australia, Great Britain, and most recently in New Zealand.

Read: Washington Post Is Super Happy That Walmart Is Curbing Gun Violence Or Something »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove