Say, When Will Republicans Ever Stand Against President Trump?

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

Tribune News Service’s Scott Martelle continues with the Trump Derangement Syndrome, wondering if Republicans will ever stand against him

Will Republicans ever take a stand against Trump? | Opinion

Republicans have been engaging in some interesting contortions in conjuring a defense for President Donald Trump’s attempt to get Ukrainian officials to investigate the family of political rival Joe Biden. The most plausible approach is one Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey signed on to last month, saying that he is keeping an open mind but that even if Trump asked Ukraine for a favor, the offense may not rise to a level that demands impeachment.

That’s a debate worth having, and it will likely underlie the arguments if and when the House sends articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.

My short answer: Yes, what Trump did is an impeachable offense. And yes, it is sufficient to require his removal from office, especially when placed within context of his other actions.

There are precious few policies that this administration has pursued that I agree with. And there are precious few Trump backers who accept that one can oppose Trump on policy grounds, yet also not reflexively back impeachment.

The screed goes through lots of spin as it winds its way, particularly about the firing of James Comey, of whom Trump had every right to fire and it was recommended that he actually fire him, along with making stuff up about Trump threatening to fire Mueller (Scott forgets to mention the outcome of the Mueller report, which was Bad for Democrats)

This is the internal wrestling Toomey and other Republicans will have to contend with. If a president pressuring a foreign government to investigate a political rival for his own political gain and then obstructing congressional efforts to conduct oversight doesn’t cross the line into impeachment territory, then where is the line?

In fact, is there a line that this president could cross that would lead Republicans to put national interest ahead of party loyalty, and vote for his removal?

This is the crisis that looms larger than Trump’s abuses. The Constitution creates the process to hold a rogue president in check, but that check disappears if Congress won’t use it.

That’s all very interesting, and, an argument that President Obama should have been impeached repeatedly. But, one has to wonder, when did Democrats ever not support Obama? When did they take him to task for things like Libya, Operation Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, creating his own policies while avoiding the duly elected Legislative Branch, and so much more? Heck, even as Democrats were losing thousands of federal, state, county, and local seats, they didn’t take him to task.

So, why should Republicans diverge from Trump on Ukraine? They all know this is pure mule fritters, that it was about investigating corruption, corruption that Joe Biden was involved in. They know that this is just a big nothingburger, things that constantly happen during politics, both domestic and foreign.

Read: Say, When Will Republicans Ever Stand Against President Trump? »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

What We Really Need To Solve The Climate Crisis Is A Global Tax Or Something

By William Teach November 12, 2019 – 8:13 am

Personally, I’d recommend that all members of the Cult of Climastrology give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral, but, hey, they want everyone to suffer

The Real Cost Of A $50 Trillion Climate Change Push

In three weeks, the world’s leaders will begin to gather in Madrid for the 25th United Nations Climate Change Conference. The intensity of the global climate strikes this year suggests that the proceedings will be scrutinized as never before. But the decisions made, or not made, will also have repercussions for global markets.

We’re transitioning towards a lower carbon economy, albeit at a slower pace than needed to stay within a two degrees Celsius climate scenario (2DS). For companies that can build offshore wind installations, develop electric vehicles and manufacture renewable diesels, we see potential for material earnings growth. In Decarbonisation: The Race to Net Zero, we estimated that more than US$50 trillion of capital will need to be deployed into renewables, EVs, hydrogen, biofuels and carbon capture and storage over the next 30 years, putting US$3-10 trillion of EBIT up for grabs.

Decarbonising electricity is the largest opportunity to reduce carbon emissions, with the power sector responsible for a quarter of global emissions. Strong renewables growth should be achievable given the significant improvements we’ve seen in solar and wind economics. But costs continue to constrain many other clean technologies, including battery storage, green hydrogen, CCS and biofuels.

If governments are serious about halting climate change, some form of stimulus will be needed.

That means more money out of your pocket, in the form of taxation and higher energy costs, which means a higher cost of living, along with government limits on how you live your life.

Taxes should be another means of incentivizing investment in low-carbon technologies, but they remain ineffective. Even in Europe, where the carbon price has increased three-fold since the end of 2017, it remains far below the US$75 per tonne estimated by the IMF as necessary by 2030 to achieve a 2DS.

Even if the price of carbon rises to that level, a global tax is needed, through either a multilateral agreement or a carbon border adjustment. Domestic carbon taxes are unlikely to succeed in a world where many industries can move to regions with less punitive environmental regimes.

Well, that’s kicking the tax schemes up to 11, eh?

Read: What We Really Need To Solve The Climate Crisis Is A Global Tax Or Something »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Washington Post Tells Congress To Forget Supreme Court, Just Pass Amnesty For Dreamers

By William Teach November 12, 2019 – 7:48 am

Perhaps there could be a good reason that a legalization for the so-called Dreamers has never been passed, namely that it would reward law breakers and entice more to break the law, but, hey, this is Important to the Washington Post editorial board

Congress, why wait for the court to act on ‘dreamers’? Just do the right thing.

IN THE expansive realm of congressional dysfunction, there are few recent examples that surpass the failure to shield from deportation hundreds of thousands of unauthorized migrants, now in their 20s and 30s, who have grown up, studied and entered the job force after being brought to the United States as children. Here is a youthful cohort of more than 700,000 — as ambitious and promising as their native-born neighbors, classmates, co-workers and friends — whom large majorities of Americans want to protect. And still their fate remains hostage to Capitol Hill’s habitual gridlock.

As the Supreme Court hears legal arguments Tuesday on the Obama-era policy that provided a reprieve from removal and gave job permits to hundreds of thousands of young unauthorized immigrants, and on the Trump administration’s 2017 attempt to rescind that policy, it’s worth remembering some history. Specifically, that members of Congress of both parties have been trying, and failing, to codify those very protections for so-called dreamers nearly since the turn of the century.

They’re ambitious! They’re promising! And mostly end up taking jobs and college spots from lawful U.S. citizens, more often backed by taxpayer money. Anyhow, this might have worked way back in 2001 when “Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, and Sen. Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, introduced the Dream Act” originally, but, that didn’t provide any deterrents for future cases of parents bringing kids illegally, and it ended up rewarding the parents who “committed the sin” of crossing the border illegally/overstaying their visas

Perversely, it is imaginable that Congress, and perhaps even Mr. Trump, could be jarred into acting on the dreamers’ behalf by a Supreme Court ruling that removed their protections and job security. Mass layoffs and waves of deportations, along with the financial distress those would trigger, could create the sort of crisis that focuses minds in Washington when all else fails. And the fiscal and economic impact of layoffs affecting hundreds of thousands of employees, and others still in college, would be consequential. A 2017 CATO Institute study found that deporting 750,000 young people protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program would sap the U.S. economy by $280 billion over a decade, and the federal tax coffers by an additional $60 billion.

Monetary concerns should have no bearing on dealing with law breakers. People who commit crimes lose their jobs, go to jail, and create financial distress to their families all the time. The same CATO also notes

We estimate that DREAMers had an incarceration rate of 0.98 percent in 2015 compared to a native-born incarceration rate of 1.12 percent, a DACA-ineligible illegal immigrant incarceration rate of 0.38 percent, and a legal immigrant incarceration rate of 0.24 percent (Figure 1).

That’s all nice, but, do you know what the incarceration rate for Dreamers should be? Zero. They shouldn’t be here, same as the “DACA-ineligible.” A US Citizenship and Immigration Services study also found

  • Almost 8-percent of total DACA requestors (59,786 individuals) had arrest records as of the date the systems were queried, which included offenses such as assault and battery, rape, murder, and drunk driving, among others.  “Requestors” includes individuals approved and denied DACA.
  • Of those individuals whose DACA requests were approved and had one or more arrests or apprehensions, 53,792 were arrested or apprehended prior to their most recent approval.
  • Approximately 13-percent (7,814) of approved DACA requestors with an arrest had an arrest after their grant was approved and prior to renewal.

In fairness, most had no arrests. But, they’re still ripping off the Unites States, and Demanding that they be given money, food, education, healthcare, housing, oh, and that their parents be given lawful status too. As I wrote in 2017

Here’s a recommendation: Congress puts DACA into law, but allows 4 year renewals, rather than 2 years, in order to decrease burden on federal agencies. Just like with people who are applying for citizenship, any serious crimes can be cause to cancel an illegals legal status and deport them. And, yes, even DUIs may be considered cause, just like with those applying for citizenship. After 12 years, they can go through the same process as those applying for citizenship in order to attempt to earn full citizenship.

BUT, if we aren’t going to lay the “sins” of the parent(s) on the children, we are going to lay them on the parent(s). In order to obtain DACA status, the parent(s) must self deport, and provide proof at an immigration checkpoint as they leave. They are not allowed back in the United States for 2 years, and then only for a short visit. If they are caught residing in the U.S., or attempting to enter the country illegally, the children will have their DACA status ended and will be deported. After 12 years, they would be allowed to apply for temporary resident status, conditioned on speaking English and having good moral character. This seems fair. The parents broke our laws.

If you don’t agree with punishing the parents, then you’re simply using DACA to create a backdoor amnesty for all.

All the DACA attempts give the parents a pathway to staying in the U.S..

Read: Washington Post Tells Congress To Forget Supreme Court, Just Pass Amnesty For Dreamers »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Cities Look To Increase Your Energy Costs By Banning Natural Gas

By William Teach November 11, 2019 – 3:18 pm

I would love more of my home to run on natural gas, rather than just the heating and fireplace. Sadly, the stove is electric as is the water heater. It would be less expensive. Now, though, cities are doing all they can to increase energy costs for their misguided Cult

No more fire in the kitchen: Cities are banning natural gas in homes to save the planet

Fix global warming or cook dinner on a gas stove?

That’s the choice for people in 13 cities and one county in California that have enacted new zoning codes encouraging or requiring all-electric new construction.

The codes, most of them passed since June, are meant to keep builders from running natural gas lines to new homes and apartments, with an eye toward creating fewer legacy gas hookups as the nation shifts to carbon-neutral energy sources.

For proponents, it’s a change that must be made to fight climate change. For natural gas companies, it’s a threat to their existence. And for some cooks who love to prepare food with flame, it’s an unthinkable loss.

But, it’s not just cooking. It’s heating and water heaters, fireplaces, clothes dryers.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, mostly methane, and produces 33% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas causing climate change.

Wait, what? It’s mostly methane, but then CO2? Huh?

The association calls the new zoning codes for new construction burdensome to consumers and to the economy. They also say it’s more expensive to run an all-electric home. A study by AGA released last year suggested that all-electric homes would pay $750 to $910 a year more for energy-related costs, as well as amortized appliance and upgrade costs.

Of course it is. Warmists do not care. They’ll care when it is their own money, thought.

Read: Good News: Cities Look To Increase Your Energy Costs By Banning Natural Gas »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is an evil lawn which uses lots of water which is Bad for ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on yet another reason that Trump was elected.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Humor Can Help With Climate Crisis Doom Syndrome Or Something

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

The only problem here is that these hardcores have no humor and are completely unhinged, so, good luck with this

A little humour may help with climate change gloom

This year, three studies showed that humour is useful for engaging the public about climate change. The studies, published in The Journal of Science Communication, Comedy Studies and Science Communication, added to the growing wave of scientists, entertainers and politicians who agree.

In March 2017, the American Psychological Association published a report defining ecoanxiety as “chronic fear of environmental doom.” The report referred to literature that described an increase in depression and anxiety caused by peoples’ “inability to feel like they are making a difference in stopping climate change.”

With psychological stakes this high, humour may seem inappropriate. But Phil McCordic — a Canadian actor, writer and producer of children’s programming and the host of TVOntario’s Science Max educational series — thinks it could be a way to access “the attention of a lot of people you wouldn’t have otherwise.”

“Humour is so useful for children’s programming because it grabs attention,” says McCordic, who adds he believes this can be applied to adults too.

“Climate-change humour stops people from worrying about their politics and lets them take in the information …. Scientists don’t always understand their audience. Getting someone to laugh is half of the work of getting them to understand.”

These people think the world is doomed in 12 11 years, they screech about this and that, they yell at people, the glue themselves to planes and trains and doors and roads and stuff, they do not have a sense of humor, sorry, humour, and won’t be getting one anytime soon.

The Onion, a landmark American satirical media outlet, has headlines that include “Report: If Earth Continues To Warm At Current Rate Moon Will Be Mostly Underwater By 2400” and “Sighing, Resigned Climate Scientists Say To Just Enjoy Next 20 Years As Much As You Can.”

Yes, but those Onion pieces are sarcastic, making fun of the Cult of Climastrology.

Instead of minimizing the grave nature of climate change, humour can have the power to maximize the impact of climate-change science and the media.

Ah, so there’s the real point: finding a new way to cover up that the science of man-caused global warming/climate change is, at best, shoddy.

Read: Humor Can Help With Climate Crisis Doom Syndrome Or Something »

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

Extinction Rebellion Puts “Sinking Suburban Home” In Thames As Climate Protest

By William Teach November 11, 2019 – 7:15 am

I suppose this is better than their normal schtick of gluing themselves to stuff and throwing fake blood and blocking streets and trains, but, it also creates a large navigable hazard in the river Thames

Sinking suburban ‘home’ drifts down Thames in watery climate protest

A floating mock-up of a typical British suburban home was seen slowly sinking into the Thames in central London on Sunday in a protest organized by Extinction Rebellion (XR) to demand politicians fighting a Dec. 12 general election act on climate change.

A white microwave oven bobbed in the water next to the large model house, complete with drainpipes and chimney stack, which wallowed half-submerged in the river’s brownish waters not far from Tower Bridge.

Extinction Rebellion staged the protest as parts of northern and central England were struggling with the aftermath of floods that began last week when severe storms brought a month’s rainfall in less than 24 hours.

“We are watching, in real-time, as people’s lives are destroyed around the world and in the UK; unless action is taken to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero, these tragedies are set to worsen,” Extinction Rebellion said in a statement.

The danger climate change poses to societies around the world were underlined last month when a study found that 300 million people would be at risk of coastal flooding by 2050 — three times the number previously thought.

Well, they sure won’t be at risk in the U.K. Virtually no tide gauge shows anything out of the ordinary for a Holocene warm period…well, let me rephrase: almost all show lower sea rise than should be expected during a Holocene warm period. Most of the gauges show between .45 feet to .86 feet per 100 years. Tower Pier shows .47 feet, though not much data since 1985. This is near where the XR stunt occurred. Southend shows .40 feet, and Sheerness shows .54. Both are at the mouth of the Thames.

But, hey, if the science isn’t on your side, just be hysterical.

Read: Extinction Rebellion Puts “Sinking Suburban Home” In Thames As Climate Protest »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

SCOTUS To Hear Ending Of DACA Challenge Tuesday

By William Teach November 11, 2019 – 6:55 am

This should be a very, very, very interesting ruling

As Supreme Court takes up Trump plan to end DACA, American dreams at stake for nearly 700,000 immigrants

A lawyer, a teacher, a graduate student and an undergraduate gathered in a 6th-floor courtroom one recent afternoon to discuss their common dreams and nightmares.

The dreams are of futures in the United States filled with college degrees and successful careers, home ownership and happy families.

The nightmares are of losing their college loans, driver’s licenses, jobs – and the only country they can truly call home.

“It feels, in a way, very surreal,” said Anayeli Marcos, 25, who hopes to graduate from the University of Texas’ flagship campus here in May with dual Master’s degrees in social work and Latin American studies. “Sometimes it’s a bit overwhelming, feeling that your fate is in the hands of people who don’t know you.”

The Supreme Court will have the fate of these four DREAMers and some 660,000 others in its hands Tuesday when it considers the Trump administration’s decision to end the DACA program, which has provided a reprieve for some undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. A ruling on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is expected next spring in the midst of the 2020 presidential election.

Well, we all know that the liberals on the court will vote for keeping DACA in place, regardless of the Constitutionality of it. Even Obama said it was un-Constitutional for him to enact this executive action, one which contradicts federal law. What will the Conservatives on the Court decide? If they vote with the liberals, what they are doing is proclaiming that future presidents can never end a previous presidents executive orders. Realistically, DACA ended when Obama left office, since they are only good for the time the person was in office. Regardless, Trump ending DACA with an executive order is exactly the same as Obama enacting it with and EO, though Trump was ending something which was un-Constitutional in the first place.

That’s the argument in a nutshell, and I hope the Trump officials do not get caught in the weeds arguing that DACA should be ended. But, if they do, it should be remembered that these are not immigrants, they are illegal aliens, and federal law makes zero distinction on age or how they arrived. It should also be remembered that it is not 660K, it will be millions, since the parents and guardians who brought them here illegally as kids will be given a free pass, too. Further, DACA is essentially a stealth amnesty: first give the kids what is supposed to be temporary legal status, then make sure they never have to leave, much like we are seeing with all sorts of groups who were given temporary status in the U.S. post disaster, but now do not want to leave.

And what are they doing? They are demanding food, money, healthcare, housing, and education, among others. And U.S. taxpayers are shelling out for worthless degrees in social work and Latin American studies. Oh, and they’re are ungrateful

In Austin, where Texas state officials brought the original challenge to both DACA and an ill-fated effort by President Barack Obama to extend similar protections to 4 million undocumented parents, Pedro Villalobos’ job as an assistant county attorney is at risk.

The state argues in court papers that “Congress has never given the executive carte blanche to grant lawful presence to any alien it chooses not to remove, let alone benefits including work authorization, health care, unemployment, and a pathway to citizenship.”

Seated in a county courtroom he uses regularly to prosecute crime, Villalobos, 28, said a defeat at the Supreme Court “would end my service to this community.”

“I represent the state, but the state doesn’t represent me,” he said.

It doesn’t represent you because you’re unlawfully present, and it seems you’re arguing that illegal aliens should be given legal status.

But, again, getting beyond all the sob stories, this is about the lawful ability of a president to cancel a previous executive order, which has always been allowed. Liberals who are against this should consider what happens if Trump issues EOs that they do not like, because it means a future Democrat would not be allowed to cancel them.

Read: SCOTUS To Hear Ending Of DACA Challenge Tuesday »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Politics | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: It’s “Cold And Snow Is Caused By ‘Climate Change'” Season

By William Teach November 10, 2019 – 3:42 pm

Every year this starts

I try and avoid this, but, once it starts…

Read More »

Read: Good News: It’s “Cold And Snow Is Caused By ‘Climate Change'” Season »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 34 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is an area flooding from carbon pollution from using gas heat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Watts Up With That?, with a post on Extinction Rebellion nutters calling African oil leaders “climate criminals.”

It’s Canadians week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove